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.

Special set for International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples on 9 August?

Back in February, GreenLipstickLesbian and Z1720 proposed a special set for 9 August in conjunction with International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples. With the opening period for nominations for a 9 August set coming up in just a few days, I wanted to see if there is still interest in and support for a set on this topic. (If approved, I will have at least one hook to nominate.) Courtesy ping to Viriditas who also participated in discussion of this potential set. Thanks for your feedback! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. I could nominate a Sámi-related article in the next couple weeks if that would fit the theme. Zzz plant (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I think it would! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 (You're better at the prep building stuff than me): thoughts on commandeering one of @Generalissima's hooks on the history of the Ryukyuan people (one the the indigenous peoples of Japan)? She's got two approved that I can see: Template:Did you know nominations/Shō Toku and Template:Did you know nominations/Shishō.

(I'm possibly biased, because my bestie is Okinawan, but I think they're both really interesting!) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, that's a good idea. If we do choose one of these, I think the Shishō hook would work best, and it ties into the contemporary issue of military bases on the island. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll move Shisho to the SOHA; I agree a Ryukyu hook would be a good fit. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

GreenLipstickLesbian, can we add a photo to the Baranov totem pole hook? Right now there's not an approved image hook and we'll need at least one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, I've added some options to the nom just in case nobody suggests something better. I can try experimenting with different crops of the current images too. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support well, somewhat obviously -- and if anybody's interested, the article I think I'll be submit will be on the Baranov totem pole. And thank you, @Dclemens1971, for being on top of this! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. I don't think my original, preferred topic will pan out due to the GA backlog, so I will choose a different topic to work on. Viriditas (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I just started kilo in my sandbox. Not sure how far I will get, but it's at least a start. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, this is a topic area I've wanted to write in for some time, so this seems like a perfect opportunity. Support, and count me in! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, I could do Osage Nation v. Irby for that! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support, and maybe Emiria Sunassa would fit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Support, I can probably try and get a hook for another history book in if need be. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom; I can contribute a language-related hook 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Chipmunkdavis, thank you for resurrecting this thread. The set is starting to come together nicely in the SOHA. Theleekycauldron, ZZZ plant, do you think you'll be able to contribute hooks on the topics you suggested? Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I have a free day tomorrow and plan to finish up my draft about the Sámi truth commission in Sweden and then nominate it. I couldn't find enough sources for the article I originally planned to write, even with interlibrary loan :( Zzz plant (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Dclemens1971: Maaaaybe, but I won't be finished for at least a week because of Wikimania. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  If folks were OK with letting Template:Did you know nominations/Anchanchu go a few days past timeout, it could be a good fit too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• I've just nominated Native American Student and Community Center (nom), which should go nicely here! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• I also included Template:Did you know nominations/Poetri Hindia, ALT1 of which deals with indigenous empowerment in the Indies.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I just nominated Truth Commission for the Sámi People (nom). Zzz plant (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The set's come together beautifully. @TechnoSquirrel69, do you want to add a photo to your nom to give an addition choice to the promoters? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Like I said at the nomination, I didn't feel immediately drawn to any of these images on a quick look, but I can include a couple if there's a desire for more image hook options. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Does this still need an article? I was planning on making an article on an Irish Traveller at the start of August. Is it too late for that potential DYK to be in this or nah? Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99: That would be difficult to squeeze in, given that this set is supposed to go up on August 9. Since we have a full set already approved, you'll probably want to run your article as a normal hook. Thanks for your interest, though! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that I'm working on a book article related to Indigenous history (which would get the list to 11) and there's just over two weeks left, we should look into the possibility of two 12-hour sets (though this would in total require at least 16 to 18 approvals). ミラP@Miraclepine 14:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I've opened the nom: Template:Did you know nominations/Ángeles Romero Frizzi. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest running two sets that day either way. The second set can contain overspill and also the Singapore hook.--Launchballer 01:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I saw Justin Ducharme and Seventeen (2026 film) at User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult. They're off 1500 by a couple of hundred characters each. If someone else tops them up, I'm happy to spend a double QPQ on them.--Launchballer 14:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Prep 5 has opened up for 9 August and I've promoted several from the list below. I didn't promote Tabancale because I promoted the Jorá hook instead, and I'd hold off on two indigenous South American language hooks unless we need them in the interest of DYKVAR; happy to change that around of folks prefer the Tabancale hook. I haven't promoted any I'm involved with as reviewer or nominator. I recommend the Baranof totem pole hook for the photo slot but since I reviewed it I can't promote and will leave the choice of image slot between the totem pole and Native American Student and Community Center to others. Thanks to everyone who has contributed hooks and reviewed noms for this set! Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Image hook and two remaining hooks now promoted. We can add Tabancale if needed, or one of the other alternatives waiting on a review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Never mind, I see Ángeles Romero Frizzi was approved but just not added to the SOHA. Promoted that one, and now we have a lovely complete set! @Kepler-1229b, I've promoted Tabancale language to a different prep, but if you'd prefer that over Jorá language in the 9 August set, just let me know and I'll swap them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Dclemens1971 I prefer Jorá for the IDWIP set, just to let you know. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks @Kepler-1229b, and I appreciate your providing two hooks for the effort! Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Nomination list

1. Template:Did you know nominations/Complete Bible in Inuktitut - approved - promoted
2. Template:Did you know nominations/Baranof totem pole - approved - promoted
3. Template:Did you know nominations/Jorá language - approved - promoted
4. Template:Did you know nominations/Te Whare Tīwekaweka - approved - promoted
5. Template:Did you know nominations/Tabancale language - approved - promoted to Prep 6
6. Template:Did you know nominations/Ciguapa - approved - promoted
7. Template:Did you know nominations/Shishō - approved - promoted
8. Template:Did you know nominations/Poetri Hindia – pending (ALT1 only)
9. Template:Did you know nominations/Native American Student and Community Center – approved - promoted
10. Template:Did you know nominations/Truth Commission for the Sámi People – approved - promoted
11. Template:Did you know nominations/Ángeles Romero Frizzi – approved - promoted

Indonesia set for August 17?

Narutolovehinata5 suggested on my talk page an Indonesia set for August 17, which will be the 81st anniversary of the proclamation of independence (we missed the 80th, unfortunately). I wanted to reach out to the broader DYK community to see if there is a consensus for a special occasion set. Myself, Juxlos, and Jeromi Mikhael have already discussed the possibility of handling a range of Indonesia-related subjects. Juxlos has already prepared Raijua (island) and Mandai (food), and I should be good for an art-related topic and a film-related topic at the very least. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I would support this, but the issue is that Raijua and Mandai would probably miss unless a special exemption is granted, since both were created and nominated outside the two month mark (meaning the earliest date they should have been created or expanded was on June 17). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that's what "expired" meant. I suppose I can make more if needed, but I think it would be great if those 2 can get a couple extra days (since, well, they would be promoted sometime before Aug 17, likely something like Aug 13/14) Juxlos (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, the guidelines allow for two-months holding for most special occasion hooks. I personally think holding them would make sense, as a) It's only a couple days, and b) it was a good faith error. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Support a special set for the occasion, along with a TIMEOUT extension for Raijua and Mandai if they are needed for the set. (We seem to have no shortage of Indonesia hooks at DYK.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Support with extension for Raijua and Mandai. TarnishedPath^talk 10:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Support w/ the extension; looking forward to reading this one! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to be the party-pooper, but I'd oppose; the 81st anniversary is not particularly important and now we're going to have hooks hanging about at the already-clogged WP:DYKNA for over two months. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see what's the issue. This is only happening now because we missed the 80th anniversary last year, and this is a "better late than never" case; had we realized about the opportunity last year, we would have done this then instead. Meanwhile, next month we're running a Bastille Day set on July 14th, and it's not a "particularly important" anniversary either. I don't see why the Bastille Day set is a good idea but not an Indonesia set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't read my comment to find out the issues Narutolovehinata5; there were two. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The reasoning seems rather unfair. The Bastille Day set was proposed after the Indonesia one, yet it is the one you support because it's happening sooner? On the contrary, the Indonesia set was proposed early on purpose, to give more time to find and improve articles. Articles being held for two months is not necessarily a bad thing even if they add to the backlog: SOHA requests have always been treated as exceptions. The early leadup is to prevent cases of last-minute set proposals and checks, and is one of those "learn from experience" cases where we learned that having too little time to do a special set could lead to issues. Even the W&M set was an example of this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Second comment in a row where you've invented me saying something about the Bastille Day set, so I won't be engaging here further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm more fine with this set than the Indonesia set, because although this one also doesn't have a special anniversary, its hooks will be promoted from WP:DYKNA in one week, not seven. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Nominations

• Template:Did you know nominations/Raijua (island), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Mandai (food) (food), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Di Depan Kelambu Terbuka (painting), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Hartini (wife of Sukarno), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Riau War (war), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Trijoto Abdullah (sculptor), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Abdurrahman Mohammad Fachir (ambassador), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Gatot Abdullah Mansyur (ambassador), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Rimbi Temple (Hindu temple), approved
• Template:Did you know nominations/Poetri Hindia (magazine, only if not used for International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Jurnal Perempuan (journal, only if Poetri Hindia is used for International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples), approved

Date stamp for anti-archiving purposes — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• I think I'm going to take a break from writing for a bit - I've run out of spoons, as my cousin would say. We still would need three more articles for a full Indonesia set.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The History of Java is in the pipeline, but a bit old as it was expanded on May 11. I am not the nominator. TSventon (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• It would be nice—important work—but that would essentially be a whole extra month. I don't know if we'd get a consensus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm the nominator. I think it's fine for it not to be in Indonesian set. It would be over 3 months on August 17 after all. - Ivan530 (Talk) 21:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's the thing - hook holding for SOs is normally a maximum of two months. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No rush, it's not even July yet. Can come up with a couple more throughout July. There are also Jeromi Mikhael's articles in the queue. Juxlos (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Still pending one review, but overall I think we have some good diversity. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Images at DYK

I'm surprised to see that we ended up running the image at Template:Did you know nominations/Borgland on the main page today. To me, that image is blurry and not very clear at DYK size. Is that not something prep builders consider much anymore? Or perhaps there is a shortage of appropriately licensed images these days? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Images are still considered by prep builders. Personally, I think the specified image works well at 100px, but I suspect that will differ significantly based on the resolution you are using.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I was surprised that this hook was selected for the image slot (even though it was my hook, so I wasn't going to argue), but this is up to the discretion of prep builders and queuers. Concerns about image selection are welcome here in advance of a set going live on the main page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m not super upset about this (and it is an interesting article!), and admittedly I am not much involved in DYK day to day these days, but if indeed it’s a systematic concern (not enough good images, or something), I still think it’s a discussion worth having regardless of the fact that this set is on the MP already. But maybe that isn’t the case. Back when I was pretty active here I felt like there were almost too many image hooks rather than not enough. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we have more good images than we have slots for them. (I almost always include an image in my nomination if there's one in the article, for the convenience of promoters.) Sometimes good images don't get used because promoters and queuers are trying to balance images so that images of people don't appear back to back, and that we don't overdo images in a particular topic. As a set comes together, what might be considered a subpar image in general might be the best option within a set. (For example, the only other suitable image for this set would have been from David Bawden.) I also think this particular image was fine for the main page, although I'm sure others might have been better, or I wouldn't have included it. There are lots of considerations and ultimately it's a matter of individual discretion unless someone raises a concern. I appreciate your checking in on the topic! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Totally valid, thanks for the detailed explanation! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

There are image processing filters that can remove those halftone dots, and I had to use them to add similar images to articles in the past. I don't think this image should have been run without removing the dots first. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Note, Iain Fergusson's "Remove Pattern" G'MIC-Qt filter seems to do the trick in GIMP. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think I can download this software on my primary computer, but I will make note of it for the future. Thanks for the tip. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This brings up the related topic of folksonomy, or collaborative tagging, that was alluded to a month ago over at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_38#Idea. If we had this system in place (like we do for some types of noms, but for discussion instead), and the OP had posted their concern and tagged it as "image", we could have image experts watching a feed for such a tag, who could then step in and comment or fix the image. This would allow us to bridge the gap between time zones and more closely draw on the available teams of people who can participate in their respective fields of interest. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290: wonder what your thoughts are on this, given you are one of the image experts I am referring to who showed up out of nowhere to add an image to a nom. Would you be interested in a system like this that could allow you to monitor image discussions and requests? The easiest off-the-shelf way to do this is to fold this into Wikipedia:Feedback request service by adding a section for DYK topics. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I would be interested in helping add images to DYK pages before they're on the main page, though I admit I can probably only help for American topics before the 1980s due to the state of copyright at that time. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. We already have too many images. What we need is someone with image expertise to review the images we have. See the start of this thread. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Prep 7 (30 July)

Emiway Bantai (nom)

@Cielquiparle, Epicgenius, and Beta Beta Beta: I have bumped this out of Queue 7 since it is heavily reliant on unbylined Indian celebrity news, which per WP:NEWSORGINDIA is a sign of potential paid or advertorial content. Several of these stories are also churnalism regurgitating social media posts (example) and internet comments into cheaply written articles without any apparent original reporting. One source is a republished Asian News International item, which per RSN is marginally reliable to generally unreliable. Furthermore, the promoted hook fact is not fully in the article. The bit about going viral on TikTok is, but not the part about the TikTok ban. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The hook confused me a bit on first read with the it pronoun, can we replace "it" with "the app"? Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 @Beta Beta Beta Could we just withdraw the nomination? Emiway Bantai has such an enthusiastic online following, the article is high-traffic on its own even without appearing on the main page, and is definitely *not* stable (as in the fans keep adding more "stuff" to the article which is hard to keep up with). I think Beta needs to undo the promotion and then feel free to mark it as withdrawn. Thanks! Cielquiparle (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pulled the hook and closed it as withdrawn. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Wingdings for April 1?

Prep 4 includes the hook -

• ... that ʅ͡(̸̢̛̼)̸͚͛:̴͓̑:̸͎̂ ҉ ͡ ͞ ͞ ͞ ҉● ࿀ ● ࿀ ● ҉⃝ ⃝͢ ͞ ͘ ͞⃝̕ ͢ ̛ ⃝ ̸ ̡ ͢⃝̧ ͡ ͡ ̀ ̧ ̢⃝͜ ҉ ͞ ͞ ⃝͞ ͘ ͞ ͡⃝ ⃝҉҈҉҈҉҈҉҈҉҈҉ :̶̢͙͆(̷̮͂)̵̳̊( ҈͜͢ͅ l̡ ̡͌ Ɵʅ͡(̸̢ broke iTunes?

How about moving that to an April 1 hook instead? I'd probably go with something a bit more jokey, like

• ... that ʅ͡(̸̢̛̼)̸͚͛:̴͓̑:̸͎̂ ҉ ͡ ͞ ͞ ͞ ҉● ࿀ ● ࿀ ● ҉⃝ ⃝͢ ͞ ͘ ͞⃝̕ ͢ ̛ ⃝ ̸ ̡ ͢⃝̧ ͡ ͡ ̀ ̧ ̢⃝͜ ҉ ͞ ͞ ⃝͞ ͘ ͞ ͡⃝ ⃝҉҈҉҈҉҈҉҈҉҈҉ :̶̢͙͆(̷̮͂)̵̳̊( ҈͜͢ͅ l̡ ̡͌ Ɵʅ͡(̸̢ breaks things?

The hook is by first time nominator User:Neo Purgatorio. Do you want your hook to appear in a few days time, or save it for possibly a higher visibility day? - hahnchen 13:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Also note that the article as it currently stands breaks the mw:Page Previews widget. - hahnchen 13:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  It does not however break the Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, for some reason. If this is moved to April perhaps someone could triage that difference before it runs. CMD (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not happy that the hook partially obstructs the hook above and below it. If we run it as an April hook, we can just run several shorter hooks below it, but it still obstructs the hook above. Should we IAR on DYKDIVERT and run (creator pictured) in the first slot, or put that as hook one with (pictured) in the second slot, or something else entirely?--Launchballer 14:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I like this hook for a variety of reasons (simplicity, hookiness, attention-getting, surprising content in the article) and I'd be willing to IAR any concerns to move forward, now or next April. I expect it will do crazy numbers. I don't think the text irreparably blocks the hooks around it, and running it in the bottom slot means only one hook gets partly obscured. One concern is that the boldlinked text renders differently on desktop versus mobile, probably as a result of the unusual unicode. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

My concern with this hook is readability. Obviously the point of the hook is that it's unreadable, hence why the proposal to run it on April 1, but I'm really not sure if we should be deliberately introducing readability issues for the sake of quirkiness or views. Plus, if it ends up covering the rest of the set, then it might be a net negative if the other hooks suffer as a result. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It's in the quirky slot, so it's not obscuring the other hooks. I think it will be okay, although we might get a few complaints about it. Gatoclass (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Getting a few complaints is the issue. DYKG already says that quirkiness should not be used as an excuse to IAR stuff. We have to balance reader and editor interests. Sometimes, things that editors think is a good idea, despite concerns being raised, ends up being criticized when actually done. There's also the question of mobile readers and those who rely on readers and the like. The costs don't seem to justify it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It does obscure the hook above on my device. I tend to think we shouldn't deliberately run hooks that are annoying as fuck for those who use screenreaders to interpret or are annoying as fuck for sighted readers to look at (especially because, as I say, it does obscure text). Find something else interesting to run for this article. Urve (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Haven't had time to respond. I don't really mind when this runs (although, April is also in quite a while.. the article would probably be less relevant to people then). I personally would prefer it running within normal times, but I also don't really care that much. If April 1 lets me keep the original hook, go for it. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 05:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

As someone who grew up playing with Wingdings and Webdings on Word Perfect and MS Word, I love the idea of this hook. However, I use Chrome browser and it doesn't render properly. That issue needs to get addressed. Unless it's supposed to have a bunch of the Unicode squares?----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't work on Chrome, Edge, or even Firefox (I just checked all three browsers), although it does display different on Firefox. The thing is: it not rendering properly is apparently supposed to be point of the hook. So the hook was never supposed to be dependent on showing Wingdings, because it not properly showing is on purpose. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The point is that the album name is in unicode. I don't think it matters if some of the unicode symbols only display as squares in some apps - it still gets the point across that the album name is incomprehensible not only to humans but also to some software platforms. In fact the more I think about this hook, the more I love the idea. I think it will get an absolute ton of hits. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Are we seriously considering inconveniencing readers in the name of clicks? This might really set a bad precedent and I genuinely think this won't be received well, even if does get more hits. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

What inconvenience? Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

If the whole point of a hook is to have a garbled mess that won't even display properly on most browsers, and it could cause issues with readability, I'm not sure if that is a hook worth running, regardless of how many clicks it gets. Even if the hook does well, we really do not want this to be another case of readers complaining. It's not good when DYK keeps running hooks that it thought was a good idea, only for pushback to happen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The "garbled mess" is the actual name of the album. It's not our fault the musician chose a very odd name. But it does highlight his originality and sense of humour, and it's definitely eye-catching. There are always a handful of critics when anything out of the ordinary appears on the main page, but trying to please everybody just results in a bland product. Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it really "the actual name of the album"? Which garbled mess is the name? Is it

ʅ͡(̸̢̛̼)̸͚͛:̴͓̑:̸͎̂ ҉ ͡ ͞ ͞ ͞ ҉● ࿀ ● ࿀ ● ҉⃝ ⃝͢ ͞ ͘ ͞⃝̕ ͢ ̛ ⃝ ̸ ̡ ͢⃝̧ ͡ ͡ ̀ ̧ ̢⃝͜ ҉ ͞ ͞ ⃝͞ ͘ ͞ ͡⃝ ⃝҉҈҉҈҉҈҉҈҉҈҉ :̶̢͙͆(̷̮͂)̵̳̊( ҈͜͢ͅ l̡ ̡͌ Ɵʅ͡(̸̢

which it seems we have totally invented, or is it the original

ʅ͡͡͡͡͡͡͡͡͡͡͡(̸̢̛̼̞̭͋ͅ)̸͚̰͛̔̾̀̿͒͂:̴͓̞̑̌̂̆̊͋̀:̸͎̟̯̂̓̌ ҉ ͡ ͞ ͞ ͞ ҉● ࿀ ●  ࿀  ● ҉⃝ ⃝͢ ͞ ͘ ͞⃝̕ ͢ ̛ ⃝ ̸ ̡ ͢⃝̧ ͡ ͡ ̀ ̧ ̢⃝͜ ҉ ͞ ͞ ⃝͞ ͞ ͡⃝  ⃝҉҈҉҈҉҈҉҈҉҈҉ :̶̢͙͙͕̠̩͆(̷̮͍͚̫͚͂̍)̵̳̗̊( ̟̞̝̜̙̘̗̖҉̵̴̨̧̢̡̼̻̺̹̳̲̱̰̯̮̭̬̫̪̩̦̥

I see zero evidence that the first is the name of the album or is anything beyond the creation of a Wikipedia editor. It was created with the justification "MOS:TE and to avoid ... literally breaking the article", both of which are irrelevant. It will not "literally break" the front page to run this, and either this sequence of characters is the name of the album (in which case the removal of the particular zalgo text is not supportable by MOS:TE), or it's actually not the name of the album, in which case we can just refer to it as Wingdings. (Don't we prohibit original research for this reason?) As for the second name -- in the originally-approved hook -- it fucks up presentation for other hooks.

I remain of the opinion that we shouldn't mess with people who use screenreaders, especially when there's no reason for them to expect their software to spit out either a few random words that have zero semantic meaning (BLACK CIRCLE BLACK CIRCLE BLACK CIRCLE ELL) or a never-ending stream of straight-up gibberish. People searching for or coming across the article can have the full title (whichever of the two versions we conclude is actually the title) because they probably expect it. Urve (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Screenreaders will encounter the same issue when accessing the article itself - but will presumably puzzle the listener more as they will have no advance warning.

It was the composer's choice to so name their album. Who are we to question their artistic choices? Gatoclass (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has a notice saying "This article contains uncommon Unicode characters. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of the intended characters." Does the front page? Urve (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a question on how to state the album's title in the article itself. It is not a question about why we should do the same for a DYK hook. We have been encouraging pipe links more and more when we feel that they serve the hook or reader more, and here is a case of suddenly throwing that out the window. I get the intention, I even agree that the hook would be more unusual or get attention if we do it, I just really do not see this as a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's a browser problem, but a problem with the fonts installed on your machine. Even with missing square characters, I'd be happy with this being run on April 1. It looks fine in Firefox to me, the most recent version no longer overlaps any lines, on both Android and Windows. - hahnchen 23:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine on Firefox and Chrome on my PC, and also on Firefox and the native browser on my Samsung smartphone. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hahnchen it's a browser problem because in Chrome on my phone it won't render properly whereas in the Wikipedia app on my phone it will render properly. either way, how does one get the proper rendering support? I hate navigating the rendering support pages and downloading fonts because half the time they don't even end up working or it wasn't the right thing to download.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As the user who reviewed and approved the hook — I don't really get the criticisms that this would be unduly distracting to readers. Readers who might not usually read DYK would be drawn to it, as it's rather eye-catching. A little bit of fun now and then is a good thing for the encyclopedia! I agree with Urve though in that the second name, with the ascending and descending diacritics, is the correct version to use. The former misrepresents the name of the album. I also think waiting until April 1 may be excessive. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima I like the idea of the hook, it's just the rendering support issue that has me hesitant.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

How to proceed?

I see three main paths here, lots of opinions expressed, and no consensus for any of them. To refine a path forward, what do people think of the following three options? Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: Run the hook with uncommon unicode characters, as is, in a regular DYK set.
• Option B: Run the hook with uncommon unicode characters only on April Fool's Day.
• Option C: Do not run the hook with uncommon unicode characters at all.

Courtesy ping to @Generalissima @Black Kite @Hahnchen @Narutolovehinata5 @Urve @Gatoclass @3family6 @Neo Purgatorio @Chipmunkdavis @Launchballer Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

---

• B, ideally with some spacing between it and the other list items, but I have no problem with this running. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• C, B if it must run. I still do not think that the hook should run at all, especially when it is likely to cause readability issues. However, the sentiment is clearly in favor of running, so if it must, it should run on AFD when we already throw out most of our rules anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, though I'd be okay with B. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• C for the reasons set forth above. Definitely not A or B; those options are reflective of our monomaniacal obsession with page views at any cost and sets up deeply perverse incentives. If it's so important that readers get a sense of the title (which title???), turn it into an image and run it in the first slot with something to the effect of "... that an album's title (pictured) broke stuff?". That would be a more supportable case of IAR than any of its other invocations above. Urve (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I support turning it into an image.--Launchballer 21:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I was actually thinking something similar. I concur that doing it as the thumbnail image for the section I think might be the best way forward.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's long enough that I have no idea how an image would both encompass the full title and be legible at 140px. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

We could just run it as a piped link then the image will do the work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

But the image would be illegible at 140px so no point in running it in an image slot. If option C is consensus, we can just run it with “Wingdings” in the bold link. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• A if possible and B as an alternative. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 17:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• A as it's the nominator's preferred. B otherwise. - hahnchen 22:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • It looks like "B" is the most agreeable option. Unless anyone disagrees, I will pull the hook and place it in the AFD holding area. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

    Sigh. Urve (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 1 (29 July 2026)

Ang Eng Tee (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Infodump0, and Turnagra:: I'm not seeing Katong mentioned in the source. Joo Chiat, yes, but not Katong. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi thanks for checking through, if I recall correctly the mention of Katong was in the TV programme but not the source. Basically the source was reporting on the TV programme, but in the source they did not mention that part. But sourcing directly from TV programme might not fulfil WP:V, I think we remove Katong and just mention only Joo Chiat? Infodump0 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

... that scriptwriter Ang Eng Tee created The Little Nyonya by drawing inspiration from the rich Peranakan Chinese heritage in Singapore's Katong and Joo Chiat? Infodump0 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• That should be fine. I'll make the change before I promote. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Mia Bustam (nom)

This is one of my nominations, and thus will require another pair of eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 14:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Juufuutei Raden (nom)

Just going to note here that I wasn't sure if this article went against WP:INUNIVERSE, but it does seem that the sources are referring to the person behind the VTuber character rather than the character herself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

creator In general for VTuber articles, I've just been treating it as a pseudonym, which most sources do as well. It was especially easy in this article since it is just a pseudonym, with some rakugo elements thrown in. 1brianm7 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The Hedgehog Temple (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Dragonhawk12, and APK: What makes inlab-architects a reliable source?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

In.labs architects helped create the installation. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 13:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Alright, so fine as a primary source. Now queued. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I created Prep 8

There is a heavy backlog so I went ahead and created Template:Did you know/Preparation area 8. I think it would be very helpful to have. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• At the bare minimum this should have been discussed. Personally, I think we are fine with 7 for now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume this was because you have an approved DYK waiting (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lego_Life). Your best bet is to just be patient. It will make its way on its own. abandeali (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it was because there are many approved nominations, quite a few having images (if you use the image you can only do one per page), and I was trying to make the queue run smoother. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, we do usually have more preps filled than queues.--Launchballer 17:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

We should probably ask active preppers and promoters to queue. Having a Prep 8 and a Queue 8 could make it easier to build up to and maintain a 2 a day run. TSventon (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• (ec) The bottleneck is consistently in the queuing. If we are stable at full queues and full preps for an extended period of time, 8 preps / queues might make sense. But when we're not utilizing available resources to the maximum, it doesn't make sense to add more. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it could be considered if preppers and promoters wanted it. As they haven't said anything, I assume they don't. Starting a 2 a day run requires filling all 7 queues and only 6 full preps are allowed, so there is some space to move nominations back from queue to prep, so having 8 preps and 8 queues could give some more flexibility. TSventon (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind an extra prep. Sometimes when I go to promote, I find there isn't any space, so I've ended up keeping an off-wiki list of what I want to move to prep later. That said, the core issue is probably that there are more promoters than queuers. Which makes sense, since queuing can't be divided up as easily and requires TE perm. Zzz plant (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Not having any space for the hooks is what I was thinking as well. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

No strong objection to extra prep or queue areas. But while we can create extra preps, we can't create extra hours in the day or days on the calendar or command extra volunteers. In the absence of being able to do 12-hour sets, creating more prep areas will not resolve the backlog but simply transfer part of the backlog there. I could see the creation of extra preps requiring us to consider adjustments DYKTIMEOUT, since nominations would be expected to spend longer in prep and queue than the roughly two-week max that prevails now. Any adjustment needs to be done in consultation with @Theleekycauldron to ensure that PSHAW works with additional preps; I am not enough of a technical brain to know if there are any issues with how PSHAW is coded that would limit our ability to add new prep areas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I use PSHAW and Prep 8 works as far as I can tell. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: I mean, a lot of scripts would have to be adjusted, but it's not impossible. But I think you're right that it would just be moving the backlog from one place to another. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong objection to Prep 8 being created as there is no clear need for it. I'd like to recommend that an admin delete this page as unneeded. Past prep and queue additions were only done after consensus was established that they were needed, and I don't see that in the discussion here. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Honestly, that was my first reaction. However, as discussion is ongoing, I do not think that would be particularly fruitful ATM.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Prep 2 (30 July 2026)

Wood-waste burner (nom)

@Dclemens1971, CaptainEek, and Mariamnei: Article says 60% before 1970, hook says 60% before 1980... which is correct? Also, "points out" is very much a weasel word... I haven't gone into a detailed read, but I do have concerns for neutrality. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492 I fixed the date, thank you. As to points out...how is that a weasel word? I'm attributing an authorial conclusion that wood burners were wasteful and devouring (a value judgement that I'd hesitate to make in WikiVoice). I'm open to wording suggestions? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• (ec) "Point out" is specifically mentioned at MOS:SAID: "For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, confirmed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said." "According to X" would be a more encyclopedic construct. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• More specifically, "According to Mihalyo, some 60% of all timber harvested prior to 1980 was "devoured" by wood burners." (unless they use "wastefully" specifically in the text). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
• What about "According to Mihalyo, some 60% of all timber harvested prior to 1980 was "indiscriminately devoured" by wood burners." The book is available via archive.org and the paragraph ends with "our wasteful past". TSventon (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, that phrasing would be much better.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• For the sake of getting this into queue, I've made the change in the article. Hook fact was addressed by the nominator, so we should be good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, @CaptainEek, @TSventon - I just saw this. I don't think there is still an issue here, but please ping me again if there is. Have a wonderful day! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Giorgio Valensin (nom)

@Dclemens1971, RabidTuberculosis, and Knightoftheswords281: Article only identifies one symphony explicitly as during his time as a banker. It also doesn't specify that his time as a banker was in Florence; being part of a finance commission does not necessarily mean being a banker in that city. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Chris Woodrich You're right, a closer read of multiple sources suggests that he was an independently wealthy banker before being elected to the finance commission of Florence, and that he was a banker only at the time of his opera composition. I've amended the article accordingly, appreciate your review! RabidTuberculosis (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• RabidTuberculosis, what should we do with the hook? Any recommendations? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492 recommend amending ALT1b to "... that Giorgio Valensin wrote an opera while working as a banker in Florence?" since his being a banker at the time of opera being written/performed in Florence is directly sourced. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thought I had responded, but I guess I didn't; I implemented the change and moved this to queue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Cheongpyeongsa

My nomination for Cheongpyeongsa was just closed because of timeout. Is there a way to bring it back? There was no problem with the article itself and there are nominations older than mine. KimYubin (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Technically yes, via GA (which I suspect I may have to take Enid Sinclair through, but anyway...). I recommend coming armed with a different hook just in case; that Piotrus found it interesting does not mean promoters will.--Launchballer 12:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The same can't be immediately said for existing GAs like Tingyun, sadly. I think WP:DYKTIMEOUT needs to address these rare cases where unpromoted GA noms are timed out despite an approved hook (a bit borderline on DYKINT, but wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't the case). ミラP@Miraclepine 16:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

DYKTIMEOUT is explicitly written to address approved hooks. (That's why it encourages DYK participants to review an unapproved hook instead of rejecting it first.) If an approved hook isn't interesting enough to attract attention/support from promoters and queuers for two months, then why should it be kept around longer when we have a deep backlog? The lack of promotion after two+ months is an implicit judgment that the hook does not pass WP:DYKINT. (Tingyun was just now promoted, though, instead of closed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware and good point. I still had to bring it up because I have some concern that DYKTIMEOUT's words if a nomination timed out while it was waiting for a review or a re-review, consider reviewing the nomination rather than rejecting it doesn't mention promotions (and is less likely to encourage them), but maybe that implies that it includes them? On the other hand, not everyone will get the implication and the first sentence mentioning promotions implies they're different things, especially while it's in the "review" section, so I had to point it out. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The nominations older than yours have had new hooks reviewed more recently and it's generally a courtesy to give a newly approved hook a few days to attract interest from a promoter. They are all eligible for timeout at any moment though. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6

Prep 6 seems a bit too heavily skewed towards music and art. Can we swap one or two of these out? It will detract from readership having too many arts related hooks in a single set.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, some of these can be moved around. The promoter who handled most of this set is new to promoting, and I provided a reminder on DYKVAR on their talk page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks better now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I see two hooks mentioning musicians, one of which is a film, and I also see an opera hook and an art hook. I moved the second forward; two music hooks isn't a DYKVAR problem.--Launchballer 18:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

No, but Prep 7 had no arts content, so I swapped an art bio for a science bio and everything is better balanced now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Prep 7 (4 August)

2007 Messi–Yamal photo shoot (nom)

@Morogris, it appears that @Beta Beta Beta de-linked Lionel Messi and Lamine Yamal's names when promoting, and I agree with that decision. Messi and Lamine Yamal are two of the best known humans on the planet. There is no need to divert the views from the boldlinked article because there will be no meaningful improvement in comprehensibility. I recommend reverting your edit. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morogris If you'd like to add back the latter part of the hook I trimmed, I won't object; I just think it's hookier and will get more clicks in its shorter form. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes, let's give it a go. Thanks for the feedback! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 02:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

avicii

The stamp thing feels a bit perfunctory, his museum has a "simulation of the high-paced lifestyle he experienced before his retirement from touring", that sounds way more interesting! ~2026-40238-85 (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

A bit late, as questions of interestingness are not addressed once the hook goes live. That option was not one suggested by the nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That hook was the second-most viewed of the month, so it obviously wasn't that bad. (@Dclemens1971:, what are we doing about the bot thinking Pizza Cat is a non-image hook?)--Launchballer 10:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

No idea; I tried to fix it, the bot overwrote it and I'm not going to spend more time thinking about it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Prep 3 (31 July 2026) (now Queue 3)

Statue of Austin Blair (nom)

@Dclemens1971, JJonahJackalope, and Juxlos: I think even with this claim attributed to a local/alternative paper, we should still be reasonably confident in its accuracy. And I am not based on the described methodology- the columnist conducted an informal search by looking up the keyword "slavery" across descriptions of 150 monuments in a database. When the columnist consulted Kirk Savage--a professor with expertise in Civil War monuments--Savage noted that the statue's quote was "really unusual for that period of time" but never endorsed the idea that it is one of only two in the entire country. Since ALT1 is cited and was preferred by the reviewer, could we swap to that instead? Or if we want to go with ALT0, we could characterize the inscription more generally as "rare", which seems to be supported. Zzz plant (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought the hook was OK with the attribution, but I'm fine with switching to the "rare" terminology. ALT1 strikes me as failing DYKINT so I wouldn't have promoted that one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think in this case attributing the claim doesn't fix the underlying methodology appearing quite flawed, particularly for a sweeping assessment of all American monuments. Using his keyword search method, he would miss inscriptions that used period-typical euphemisms (such as "involuntary servitude", "the peculiar institution", etc.). I also recommend adjusting the claim in the article itself. Zzz plant (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that "rare" would work better in this instance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Pirngadi (nom)

This is one of my nominations and thus requires a second set of eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 14:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Confessions II (film) (nom)

@King10, Livelikemusic, Launchballer, and Dclemens1971:: A bit nitpicky... I'm only seeing "Debi Mazar, whom pre-fame Madonna hung out with at the NYC club". While it's pretty clear that Mazar was not famous at the time, it's not in the provided references. Also, the credits don't seem to have transferred correctly to the prep page — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen the above and am tired from shopping, so will address the above when I'm more with it.--Launchballer 21:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Apologies for the delay. There are two sources, the other says 'pre-fame Mazar'. Credits seem fine, what are you seeing?--Launchballer 10:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Where are you seeing "pre-fame Mazar" in the second source cited in the article? The only mention is "Other scenes bring together a collective of some of pop culture’s most beloved faces through the years, including supermodel Kate Moss, actors Debi Mazar, Benedict Cumberbatch and DJ Honey Dijon." Another Joe Lynch-penned source, here, spells it out explicitly: "Debi Mazar, who swings by “Danceteria” – a nod to their shared past, as pre-fame Mazar and Madonna hung out at the iconic, now defunct NYC club Danceteria and made out together “to attract boys” and help get the DJ to play Madonna’s cassette". This would be better cited in the article.

As for the credits, I fixed the issue but still flagged it so that it could be double checked.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I added that to the article.--Launchballer 12:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks muchly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Jeanna Giese (nom)

@Dclemens1971, Jolielover, and BeanieFan11: I'm not seeing how most of the treatment section meets WP:MEDRS. Description of the treatment regiment both here and at Milwaukee protocol are cited to popular science magazines, rather than secondary medical sources/reviews, and claims of their general efficacy should be cited to stronger sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like every claim that would require WP:MEDRS is sourced to a peer-reviewed journal article or to a well-regarded science magazine like Scientific American that, per WP:MEDPOP, would meet the bill for MEDRS. The claims sourced to non-MEDRS are not medical claims but rather routine statements (such as when she went to/was released from the hospital). The one claim that should probably have a MEDRS instead of a news article is She did not suffer impact to her mental and cognitive abilities from the rabies or coma., but this can be solved by saying "doctors told her family she did not suffer..." which is supported by the source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I pondered this quite a bit before posting. Clear WP:BMI include:

"... seek medical attention, such as immunization, which is recommended after contact with bats.[5]: 90–91" (recommended practice)

"For a month, the rabies virus duplicated and began traveling towards her brain through a nerve, at approximately one centimeter per hour" (virus mechanism)

"Once a rabies victim displays symptoms, they usually die within a few days" (prognosis)

"Through Willoughby's research, he discovered that rabies victims who died after multiple weeks often had no trace of the virus in their bodies and their brains were normal, indicating that the body could eradicate the virus, although it was too slow to." (mechanism)

"typical symptoms of late-stage rabies such as rapid heart rate and blood pressure" (side-effects)

"biopterin deficiency, which is a deficiency of the molecule responsible for some cell growth and neurotransmitters such as dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, serotonin, and melatonin." (definition)

"Although the Milwaukee protocol was attempted 6 times since Giese's success as of 2007, they all resulted in deaths. This has led to queries about how Giese did not die. Some rabies experts suggested that Giese was infected with a weak variant of rabies. As the CDC could not collect samples of the virus itself, this theory can neither be proven nor disproven.[5]: 95  As of 2015, there were 31 failures of the method, and critics highlighted issues with its reliability for human rabies patients" (Primary source, though potentially allowable due the rarity of the procedure, followed by MEDPOP).

WP:MEDPOP allows that "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." Scientific American works for the specifics of her case, but should not necessarily be applied to the general biomedical information provided here. Most claims are probably relatively mundane, medically speaking, and perhaps okay, but some are extraordinary: "[Willoughby] discovered that rabies victims who died after multiple weeks often had no trace of the virus in their bodies and their brains were normal, indicating that the body could eradicate the virus, although it was too slow to" is a particularly strong claim that I would not state as a definitive fact based on a MEDPOP source.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)edited: 21:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If you dispute the permissibility of the present sources for these claims, I'd recommend you pull the hook; if new sources must be found, that may be more work for the nominator than can be reasonably expected to be completed in the few days before this goes to the main page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'll do that, and post at WT:WPMED to request feedback on sources from persons active in the area. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Prep 4 (1 August 2026)

John A. Manke (nom)

@Dclemens1971, RabidTuberculosis, and Lethargilistic: Both of the provided sources in the article are to NASA, which is not independent in this instance. Per WP:DYKHOOK, I'd be much more comfortable if there were independent sources confirming Manke's achievement.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not independent, but I think it would be reliable for the claim. (NASA is generally an authority on aerospace milestones, and DYKHOOK does not require independent sourcing.) Perhaps @RabidTuberculosis has a secondary source but I think NASA is reliable here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• While it's true that we don't require an independent source in general, DYKHOOK notes, "Superlative hooks such as first/biggest/most are discouraged as they are regularly debunked at ERRORS. Such hooks require sourcing that discusses the set in some detail; a throwaway comment in an article about the subject is not sufficient. Additionally, queuers are encouraged to bring superlative hooks to Wikipedia talk:Did you know for further discussion even if they appear watertight." Independent sourcing in this instance would help assuage potential concerns. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  On page 122 of Reed and Lister's book Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story , they report that: A few weeks later, on a beautiful spring day in the Mojave Desert, John Manke made the world's first supersonic lifting-body flight in the HL-10 on 9 May 1969. This corroborates NASA's archival and biographical sources elsewhere in the article. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  The claim is also made in Reed and Lister's Wingless Flight (), the local newspaper for the Edwards AFB area (), an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics paper (), a separate NASA report (). It's a well-attested statement, but I don't think there would have been any reason to doubt NASA's reliability for this claim in the first place. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, that should be good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Jessy Randall (nom)

@Silver seren: Not anything holding up the nomination, but just noting the errors popping in the references (Wikipedia Library links used instead of normal ones) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to get NewspaperArchive links working properly, since it's a very different database than Newspapers.com. If anyone can fix the errors, I'd appreciate it. Silverseren^C 22:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Overture in G minor (Ives) (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, NeoGaze, and Zmbro: What makes MusicWeb International a reliable source? Does Wilson have any credentials elsewhere that qualify him as a reviewer? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

MusicWeb International is one of the oldest, still-running websites that hosts reviews of classical music concerts, recordings, etc. If you search in wikipedia (just typing "MusicWeb International" for example), shows that the website and its reviews are extensively used in articles related to classical music, such as compositions and composer/musician biographies. I assumed it would be fine to use as a reliable source.

Brian Wilson himself seems to be one of the most important reviewers in the website (at least, according to this article) and has been publishing reviews in the website between 2008 and 2021 (source). Is there a reason why you might consider him as not qualified, or the website as a whole as non-reliable? NeoGaze (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Simply put, the history section of MusicWeb International describes it as a passion project, the contact us page lists one generic inbox and one personal Yahoo address, and aside from identifying a editor I am not seeing any discussion of their editorial policy. There are a few red flags, hence my question.

WP:RSEDITORIAL specifically identifies the identity of the author as a potential indicator of reliability for reviews, hence my question about Wilson. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. I checked the rest of the websites to see if they had an editorial policy, and it seems that only Allmusic and The Guardian have ones. So what about those? Does someone need to check them out to determine if they are reliable? Or are they already discarded? NeoGaze (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• This one got highlighted because it's used for the hook fact. I did not look into the others in detail, though some (such as the LA Philharmonic Orchestra) are likely to be fine without looking into detail.

On topic, in the interim I looked through Google Books and found MWI cited in several clearly reliable sources (1, 2, 3), so there is sufficient usage in the literature to show that the website should be accepted for reviews.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK didn't update?

It appears as if DYK failed to update? I've checked on four browsers and I still get yesterdays. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding @DYK admins: Looks like the other main page modules updated but not DYK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Sennecaster! Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971; I'm still working my way through the instructions, should I reset the update time to midnight so I don't screw the bot over? I have never touched main page stuff like this before. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know, I've never touched those pages! Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

No, the main page bot drifts, so it should update as normal tomorrow.--Launchballer 01:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

all done, I've left a note on Shubinator's talk page as well. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is back up and running, sorry for the disruption, and thanks everyone for chipping in! Also adjusted the update time to midnight; without the adjustment, the bot would update at 00:00 again on the 31st, the adjustment speeds up the process by a day. Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks for fixing the adjustment time! Sennecaster (Chat) 01:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Queue 5 (2 August 2026)

Edward Victor Appleton (nom)

@Hawkeye7, Panamitsu, and NewAccount7295: the usage of first person plural pronouns in Edward Victor Appleton#Ionosphere is not good and should be fixed, and reference 32 fails to verify most of that paragraph; the first half in its entirety and the latter fails to verify the numbers given. Since almost every bit of text I found issue with due to first person pronouns or unencyclopedic tone or verification issues was added in 2010, I've bumped the hook. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Egg Clearinghouse (nom)

@Iseult, 1brianm7, Thriley, Zzz plant, and Sennecaster: "Charged" implies criminal charges, especially in conjunction with the top US law enforcement agency. The source indicates these were civil claims, and since they were settled without admission of wrongdoing, how about we revise the hook as follows? "... that three companies settled U.S. government claims that they manipulated the Wall Street of Eggs?" Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine with me - I'm not well versed in law claims. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 14:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Or subbing “charged with” with “accused of”? Keeps the hook punchy. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 14:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK checklist template inconsistency

I noticed an inconsistency while using the {{DYK checklist}} yesterday: the |Newness= parameter comment says, Was the article created, expanded (5x), moved to mainspace, or promoted to Good Article status within 7 days of the nomination?, while I recall reading something here somewhere about the grace period being extended to 10 days (per the DYK check tool). Which is correct? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The proposal to expand it to 10 days without any extensions saw no consensus at a recent RFC. The status quo is 7 days, with a few days grace period, and anything more than that requiring consensus to grant an exemption at WT:DYK. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The grace period is not a formal part of the status quo, if it was it would not be a grace period. CMD (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Huh, how about that. It says The seven-day limit can be extended for a day or two upon request., but I could've sworn it was more expansive, and I know I've cited that more expansive language that's apparently non-existent when reviewing articles. Huh. 1brianm7 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

In practice, one or two-day extensions are almost always granted, and occasionally reviewers will grant them themselves. However, anything more than two days (such as 10 days or more) would require a WT:DYK exemption being granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the yellow highlight text and advice proposed by the DYK check tool said "newer that 10 days" (or something along those lines). I'm not sure how to find this code quickly to link it here, but I noticed it while using the tool (hence this thresd). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

PS: For clarity, I just ran the DYK check tool on a randomly selected article (Visual Studio Code) and the result reads (emphasis added):

Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (4109 days) DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations.

-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

DYKcheck does show "if the latest date is not within the past 10 days", see User:Shubinator/DYKcheck, and has done since the tool was created in 2009. Also DYKcheck does not define the rules for DYK, it "tries to reflect consensus and does not prescribe it." TSventon (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording used by the tool could be brought into alignment with DYK policy in this case? It is a potential cause of confusion (especially in that users who may be less well versed in the rules are more likely than the "regulars" to use this tool). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

An example of the confusion this may cause can be found here. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Approved DYK just needs another another nominator/promoter or willbe Timedout and all work lost booOoooo!

Is anyone looking for something to do?

I have a DYK that has been approved and needs to be promoted ASAP as it will be subject to TIMEOUT but it needs an uninvolved nominator/promoter.

I have no idea if I can ask editors directly to do this?

Learning and don't want to have wasted my time on this fun fact just due to being missed in the queue.

Thanks so much! I&I22 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing seems to stick out to me as a major concern besides the image, so I've promoted it as a non-image hook. Beta Beta Beta - talk 19:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yahoooooooo! o that's great ha! Thank you so much @Beta Beta Beta and @1brianm7! I just didn't want to have wasted my time + to get that article to a Good Article status would be very difficult I think.

AMAAAAAAAAAZZZZZing what a relief!

yes, I am uncertain when and what kind of help can be requested at times, even after reading the guidelines. I figured this instance was ok as it was just a traffic issue of people seeing it.

Thanks again! I&I22 (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7 And yes, re: leniency with post-approval timeouts! In my case I was not receiving any notifications - so simply thought no one responded. Luckily, the editors were kind enough to give me a few extra days, but then was a rush. Learning, learning. All the very best and I really appreciate the help and shared insights, I&I22 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22, you were pinged on 20 July and did not respond for three days. Please be sure to keep an eye on your notifications next time you have an article up at DYK as questions may arise at any point. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you @Dclemens1971. To clarify, I mean I wasn't getting emails as I used to re: Wikipedia communications so didn't realise there was any activity as haven't been on Wikipedia much. Great and for sure will be more attentive next time! All the very best and thank you for your patience, I&I22 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22, I would recommend checking your nomination weekly until it is promoted as notifications may go wrong and it is easier to respond to problems when they are raised, rather than starting a last-minute discussion here. Also DYK gets more than 9 nominations a day, and struggles to keep up with them, so it is good to be aware that some nominations do time out. TSventon (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon thank you for this tip! This DYK processing was unlike others. The others were all noticed immediately when I created them so less of a lag, although it's taken me a bit to understand the process of making them, how they are judged, what they are for, how to write them etc.. I really enjoy the DYK feature so it's fun to participate. Only one chance when an article is first published! (I know if article is upgraded it is possible to try again.) For sure I will be careful next time. Good lessons.Thanks again! I&I22 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22, possibly some of the delay was because your latest nomination had an image. That may put off some reviewers as they have to review the image as well as the hook and have some knowledge of copyright. Also promotion to prep is taking longer than last year because there is a larger backlog of unpromoted nominations, currently there are 506, which would take 56 days to publish using one set of 9 a day. TSventon (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Requesting like this was explicitly encouraged at WP:DYKG until that guidance was removed in March because no one did it, so this is fine. Independently, at the moment we should probably be more lenient with post-approval timeout since there appears to be a recent trend of promoting the most-recently approved articles, not the oldest. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would encourage our newer promoters @Beta Beta Beta and @NewAccount7295 to consider promoting from the oldest available hooks that meet the standards and that help create a varied set. (Obviously there are times to draw from newer hooks, for example if a set needs more balance than is available among the older hooks.) However, this is always going to be a matter for promoter discretion, and there's usually a reason for an unpromoted hook to be lingering -- it might be not quite interesting enough, it might have a sourcing or BLP problem that the reviewer didn't notice, or it might be on a fairly obscure subject matter that promoters are less familiar with. When promoters discover blockers to promotion, they should raise them in an effort to get to a hook that will work. Ultimately, if a hook sits unpromoted for weeks or months, that's an implicit sign that the hook is probably not interesting enough. I do encourage DYK participants to time hooks out that have passed the threshold and that they wouldn't personally promote; the more old hooks hang around, the less visibility we have for newer and eligible hooks, and PEIS issues mean that we have literally a month's worth of hooks not appearing on the approved page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've passed on Enid Sinclair? Might be worth saving that for the TDOR set in November anyway, but given I've spent a QPQ on it and that saving it for then would require a trip to GA...--Launchballer 21:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't generally think hooks that boil down to "did you know some fans interpret things this way"? are particularly intriguing since there are so many possible fan theories for a popular show/game/movie (see also my comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Tingyun, which would be related). Is there an alternative? At the same time, I get that some promoters find these kinds of hooks interesting so I wouldn't reject it on those grounds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. The success of the two themed sets says trans topics are interesting, but I also see "werewolf boot camp" and queerbaiting in the article.--Launchballer 16:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about Enid Sinclair. If you want it to be saved for TDOR in November, isn't that too far given the two month maximum for SOHA requests? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I know it is, that's why I said "saving it for then would require a trip to GA". The point of my message was 'not running it would be less painful than usual'.--Launchballer 16:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer I encourage you to go for it!! Sounds fascinating woot woot! I&I22 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here too—didn't we say that WP:DYKTIMEOUT is for unreviewed noms? The wording is a bit ambiguous: "if a nomination timed out while it was waiting for a review ... consider reviewing [it] rather than rejecting it" implies that a reviewed/approved nom should not be rejected (i.e., not subject to timeout). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The first part of that section makes it clear that it also applies post-approval (e.g., by twice mentioning promoters). Perhaps adding a sentence along the lines of "Promoters should give a nom time to be promoted if it has only recently been approved", or something along those lines, which is already common practice and would eliminate this confusion. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I was under the impression that once an article was reviewed and approved, it was no longer at risk of timeout (which makes sense—otherwise, we belittle the review process itself). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 9. We have a total of 488 nominations, of which 334 have been approved, a gap of 154 nominations that has increased in size by 4 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• June 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Light Up the Night (Protomen song) (full review needed)
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Comic Fiesta
• June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Fate/Extella Link
• June 21: Template:Did you know nominations/7 Dogs
• June 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Khirbet el-Hammam (Narbata)
• June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/José María España
• June 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Stephan Ludwig Roth
• June 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Nicolae Moromete
• June 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Mujahid Bani Mufleh

Other nominations

• July 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Amadu Bansang Jobarteh
• July 1: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Toluca FC records and statistics
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Vintilă Weiss
• July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Silk biomaterial
• July 4: Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Route 101 in California
• July 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Bengal Provincial Congress Party
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/David Leibel
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/L/CPL Thomas P. Noonan Jr. Playground
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/47NEWS
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Omnisexuality
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/History of Mediacorp
• July 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Foundation of the State Crisis
• July 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Faecalibacterium prausnitzii
• July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/University of Yangon
• July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Quetena
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Volturnus
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Jackson-Benton brawl of 1813
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas J. W. Burgess (another reviewer requested)
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Finnish troop production doctrine
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Hydrography of Argentina

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) 22:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

U.S. Route 101 in California (nom)

Eyeing Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Route 101 in California for review but struggling to understand if this nom is eligible for DYK (see detailed comment on nom template page). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Replied. It seems that there's a glitch that's causing the GA promotion date to show as January 1, 2000 rather than the actual date of July 4, 2026. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Want to check something

Am I correct to assume that the article National Intelligence Bureau (Japan) cannot be considered for DYK as it's passed seven days. Ominae (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not eligible for DYK as it was created on July 17, 2026, or just over two weeks ago. While we sometimes grant one or two-day extensions, two weeks is too long. If the article can be brought to GA status, or a 5x expansion can be accomplished (which might still be possible if you can get to it within the next few days, as the article was a short stub at the time of creation), it could become eligible as either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Getting this to B is a challenge as the appropriate wiki groups who could check it (Japan/Espionage subgroups) are semi-active to have people check it. I’ll try to do the 5x route. Ominae (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Getting to B class is not necessary, you just need to accomplish a 5x expansion. You can use the DYKchecker tool to see. Given that expansion started yesterday, you have until about August 7 to complete the expansion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Ahenzae

Hello there. Can I please ask for a two-day extension for Ahenzae as it is about 34 hours later than the seven-day rule, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)