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.

WP:DYKQ

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

• I have no access to a computer for the next few days. Sorry! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  I will also be mostly offline for the next few days. I can move a prep into queue if needed but won’t be able to complete any of the checks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm also pretty tied up at WCNA for the next few days. If a non-admin queue editor can check and sign the next queue, I'm happy to move it into the cascade-protected slot! —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I see @Amakuru: got the last one (and bumped something - this is his reminder to explain himself!). I was going to queue the next one, but I had a power cut and I've had enough excitement for now. Might take it this afternoon.--Launchballer 02:22, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Launchballer: yes, sorry for not posting here earlier I was completely offline all weekend. I pushed Madyina Mguluwe out to prep 4 because I wanted to query the copyright status of the image File:Madyina Nguluwe (cropped).jpg. Its licence section points to an X post at which does say "All photos are available under a Creative Commons 4.0 CC‑BY‑SA licence", but I found this a rather vague rationale for assuming the particular photo in question, which it's claimed is "Source: COSAFA website" is actually also CC-BY-SA, particularly when the file page also says "©Alche Greeff/BackpagePix".

On the other hook I pulled, Yeh Cheng-min, I found the wording to be confusing, so wanted to workshop a change after returnning from my time away. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that image would be deleted at Commons if it were nominated. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, that's a case for VRT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that's really embarrassing given WP:ERRORS. Pinging @Victuallers: as uploader.--Launchballer 12:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

No its not really embarrassing. Its really over-reacting. We don't have an image - we contact the key person at COSAFA and she says all of her images are cc-by-sa. We get her to record that in public. Not surprisingly she didn't take all the pictures herself (obviously). Some were taken by photographers she hired. Which she confirmed are all COSAFA photos. This is a late over reaction to concerns that could have been checked at the time. Oh yes - they were! What more can we do to stop this? Victuallers (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The CC declaration has to be done by the creator. If an entity holds the copyright (because, for example, they hired the photographer and those were the terms), they have to use the VRT process to certify they have the ability to release the image under a Commons compatible license. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I can see that this might be desirable but I think you may have imagined that there is such a condition (on commons?). However even if that was/is the case (and there are thousands of images that show this is not universally understood), common sense would tell you that the COSAFA official has that authority over COSAFA images. Victuallers (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can say anything they want on X, and we cannot verify the arrangements under which COSAFA may have obtained its photos and contracted with photographers. That is why the VRT process is required if the person who produced the image is not the one uploading it. To avoid any concern here, I have swapped in a different image. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7

• I promoted 1 prep on my mobile as the queue was empty. Sukarno hook was my nomination, and I promoted the football player, so those will need eyes.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, for the school teacher, technically she swayed the deciding vote rather than decided the vote. I don't trust my fat fingers to edit a protected page, let alone the AI spellcheck that turns fat into father but leaves spellcjeck alone, so could someone on a desktop fix that? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The source for the Sukarno hook says "shadow puppetry", which I've no problem with simplifying to puppetry in the hook but you may wish to add "shadow" to the article. The source for the football player says "first man-of-war" rather than "first vessel", are they the same thing?--Launchballer 19:22, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not able to access the source for the Cikini article, but I don't remember it saying wayang kulit specifically. If it was wayang golek, wayang potehi, etc., shadow puppetry would be a bad translation. Man-of-war would mean military... I don't know if there were civilian craft sunk in the war before. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Okay, it loaded. Will update article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 2

Sabrina Online (nom)

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

By claims do you mean the interviews? Dogpatch Press is only used in only two statements and is not the main basis for the Production section. The statement was also vague because "article" could refer to either Sabrina Online's article or the Dogpatch Press page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Two separate issues. (1) The use of Dogpatch Press as a self-published source, period. (2) The use of blog interviews of Eric Schwartz to source almost the entire Production section. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I used Dogpatch Press here since Fred Patten is the author of that one article I'm using, and he is well-known as a furry historian himself (he states information that I cite for the premise and development sections). And also, I don't see anything wrong with using primary sources for fictional media for as long as it provides some much-needed additional context to the thought process and work habits of someone like Schwartz. They are interviews in blog posts, yes, but they're still interviews with the author himself, and that's the important part here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• While secondary sources would naturally be preferred, primary sources are acceptable for supplemental information (taking into consideration the constraints of WP:PRIMARY). Sure, they don't contribute to establishing notability, but so long as nothing extraordinary is claimed, a primary source should be usable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

What are the independent sources that establish Fred Patten as a reliable expert on this subject? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Fred Patten has been recognized as a credible and notable historian when it comes to niche subjects (anime, furry, etc): 1 2 3 4 5

He's also written two relatively well-cited books, one 15 times and another 259 times per Google Scholar. He's a niche freelance historian, but he is referenced as credible enough by a fair few authors at least. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

15 citations seems quite low, but perhaps this is just an area where I apparently don't have enough expertise. I won't object if another editor queues this but I'm not going to do so myself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to bump this back to Prep 7. @Crisco 1492, @Dclemens1971, @Narutolovehinata5 and @PrimalMustelid, this discussion doesn't seem to be resolving anything. As far as I can tell we have concerns about notability and about sourcing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Do we need to pull this and nominate it for AFD and wait for an outcome there? TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think notability is necessarily an issue, the coverage seems to establish notability at minimum. The issue is more the article being too reliant on primary sources, which is not necessarily an issue if used properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

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

OK, I'm going to be bold and remove the under discussion tag then. If anyone feels that strongly about it then can discuss it here. TarnishedPath^talk 11:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If I'm an outlier on this and the only one with concerns about the sourcing, I'll move the hook back into the queue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The Cross (Barre, Massachusetts) (nom)

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

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

Hi. My (possibly wishful) thinking was that the visible text is either trivial ("God's Wisdom") or excerpts from the KJV bible, and that the overall arrangement was below the threshold of originality, since it consists of just arranging the text on a cross. (And the original creator and his heirs don't seem to claim any copyright over it as far as I can tell, though I do understand that doesn't inherently mean it doesn't have copyright attached anyway.)

I would be happy to add the tagging to the Commons description page if my thinking there is accurate. And/or I could reach out to them to see if I can get an actual CC0 dedication or similar if people think that's necessary. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Would de minimis count here too or not? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be de minimis. It's text plus rudimentary shapes. While it might look like something complex all together, this example shows the US Copyright Office considers the complexity of the constitutive part before it considers whether it builds to something theoretically bigger. Shape plus shape plus shape plus text isn't considered original enough to copyright.

I tried to see if there was anything as well about an artwork so big it is visible only from miles up, but wasn't able to find anything. This is definitely not a building (which the US defines as something permanent, stationary and habitable to humans) but arguably is a "structure" (and covered by the same no-copyright rule as stuff like dams, bridges, and walkways). This is not an expert view, but I think the picture can be safely used. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I've boldly gone ahead and updated the Commons page (commons:File:The Barre Cross in MassGIS 2023 Aerial Imagery.jpg) to mark the "depicted work" as PD-ineligible (assuming that's the right tag?) separate from the photograph itself. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the responses. Firstly, I don't think this qualifies for de minimis - the assumption with that principle is that the copyrighted element is only in the background of the image, and clearly with this picture, the cross is the photo's entire subject. On threshold of originality, I agree that the individual elements – the biblical quotations, lettering and simple geometric shapes – are unlikely to attract copyright protection in their own right. However, I'm less convinced that this necessarily makes the composition as a whole ineligible. The US Copyright Office's Circular 33 specifically acknowledges that "a work of authorship that incorporates one or more familiar symbols or designs into a larger design" can sometimes "qualify for protection where their overall arrangement contains sufficient creative expression".

Looking at the aerial photograph, this seems to me to be more than simply text arranged on a cross: there's the large surrounding heart, the cross with its various inscriptions, the triangular element below it, and the enormous lettering at the bottom, all deliberately arranged as a single piece of land art. I'm not an expert on this and I wouldn't assert definitively that the work is copyrighted, but I think there's sufficient doubt that we shouldn't simply apply {{PD-ineligible}} without further consideration. If contacting the creator's family to obtain a suitable free licence or CC0 dedication is a realistic possibility, that would seem the preferable way forward. In the meantime, however, I think we need to apply the precautionary principle and this DYK hook should not run with the image at this time. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Totally fair. I've sent an email to the address listed on the contact section of their web site. If I don't hear back in another day or two, I'll try giving the phone number a call. PeterCooperJr (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough on caution. De minimis is not exclusively a background thing and often comes into play when the primary element or end result is considered too generic/rudimentary to copyright. I actually returned to the sources and feel more comfortable with it being non-copyrightable. The US Copyright Office only cares about the copyright of buildings, and explicitly in Circular 41 dismisses any claim to copyright of works like this one:

The Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in an architectural work if the work is a humanly habitable structure that is intended to be both permanent and stationary. Examples of works that satisfy this requirement include houses, office buildings, churches, and museums. By contrast, the Office will refuse to register bridges, cloverleaves, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, or boats (although a house boat that is permanently affixed to a dock may be registerable as an architectural work).

It is not subject as an architectural work. This here is a more detailed review of their architectural work policies, which gives an example of landscaping being dismissed:

Arlinda Atkins designs a condominium complex with a large, complex parking structure and intricate landscape design. She attempts to register each aspect of this design as an architectural work. The registration specialist will register the condominium design if it is sufficiently original, but will ask the applicant to remove the reference to the parking structure and landscape design.

Lastly, when discussing art in this context, they refer to it requiring pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities. It doesn't have that in these case. If it were a portrait of a biblical figure or something that would be one thing, but it's just shapes and text. Even if the text were more stylized or the shapes were abstract, it would have a case, but that's not so here. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Since it may take a bit to hear back from the artist, I'm going to pull the hook so we can continue filling up the preps. Please ping me when the status of the image is resolved so I can re-promote it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also just started a discussion on the Wikimedia Commons Copyright Village Pump (commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#The Barre Cross (large-scale land art / geoglyph)) in the hopes of getting more people familiar with US copyright intricacies to weigh in. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

As just another update, I tried calling the phone number listed on the website for The Cross and got a message that it was disconnected. I've tried sending another email, though maybe it will end up that I'll need to try postal mail or make another visit in person. (It's about an hour's drive from me and not likely to happen this weekend, and even then there isn't any guarantee that I'd be able to get in contact with someone who might have any artwork rights.) Still early on the discussion on Commons, but if I can summarize the couple responses there so far it sounds to me like there a general leaning that it's probably okay as is. Thanks. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Prep 7

Audubon Park, Manhattan (nom)

• ... that when preservationists tried to relocate John James Audubon's former house in Audubon Park, Manhattan (pictured), it disappeared without a trace?

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

@Amakuru, fair point. What about:

• ... that after preservationists tried to relocate John James Audubon's former house in Audubon Park, Manhattan (pictured), it disappeared without a trace?

– Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

(Also, the "pictured" refers to Audubon Park, not the house. If needed this can be swapped for another image hook.) – Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Epicgenius: thanks for the reply and clarification... although I'm still a little unsure which event you're referring to when you say "it disappeared without a trace"?

As I understand it, there are several distinct things going on:

• The original house was partially demolished in 1931, with its roof and porches deliberately removed.
• That original site was then redeveloped in 1932, so any remaining visible traces of the house there were lost at that time through redevelopment.
• The surviving structure was moved to a proposed reconstruction site at 161st Street, but the intended rebuilding never took place, apparently owing to a lack of funds.
• The decorative elements of the relocated house at 161st Street subsequently disappeared, possibly having been taken by scavengers.
• The relocated remains of the house also eventually disappeared, although the LPC report suggests that, having been left without a roof, they probably deteriorated through exposure to the elements.

So I think the problem with both versions of the hook is that they may be conflating different events and imply that an intact house somehow mysteriously vanished. Or have I misunderstood something here? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru, regarding point 1, essentially the entire house (including its decorations) was disassembled for relocation to another site. Regarding point 2, the entire site was redeveloped; none of the original decorations remained at their original site. Points 3 and 4 are correct. For point 5, since the whole house was disassembled, there was nothing left in the original site; nothing was built at the new site, either, and the design details were taken.

Alternatively, we can just go with another hook (of which I proposed several). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Epicgenius: Thanks for the clarification. Just to expand on my fifth point, I was referring to the eventual fate of the relocated remains at 161st Street, rather than anything left at the original site. But yes, I think we're probably overcomplicating this now! Given that the dismantling and relocation were deliberate, and the subsequent loss of the remains has a plausible explanation, I'm still not entirely comfortable with the suggestion that the house mysteriously disappeared without a trace. Perhaps one of the alternative hooks would be preferable? I do like ALT4, regarding him handing over the estate to his wife to avoid debt collectors, although I think you reckoned that would preclude using the picture? Not sure on that point myself, the picture does still represent the estate, so would probably be OK? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru, I would be fine with using an alt and not using the picture. (The picture depicts the neighborhood rather than the former estate, in any case.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done Swapped out for ALT4 and moved to a non-image slot. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Majdi Harasis

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

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

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

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

Hook interestingness is subjective and there are good reasons to question if such hooks should have been promoted at all. However, the CV-like issue is more serious and would have required a fundamental rewrite. The hook issue was probably salvageable but the CV issue was very difficult. If you are still interested in the article being featured at DYK, I suggest you first bring it to GA status. The GAN should also deal with any issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

This is the advice that has already been given. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Could you please explain how there's a CV-like issue in the current version of the article? It doesn't seem substantially different from for example Yōichi Nakanishi. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the "Military career" section somewhat reminds me of professional profiles, the kind that are published in press releases, official websites, and the like. I'm also not sure if the Awards and insignia section is better off as prose rather than a list, but I am less familiar with military articles, so if lists are the norm then I won't question that. The rest of the article looks better, but I can see why it raised concerns. I have checked Nakanishi and his case actually does look CV-like, I am not sure if I would have approved that article as is, unless that is all there is. Note that "this article was rejected, why was the other passed?" is similar to WP:OSE and does not necessarily mean we liked the other example; if anything, it can also raise questions on whether the other example was treated properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I too see the limitations of my "why this, not that" argument. But it doesn't have to raise questions on whether the other example was passed, it could raise questions on why this example was "rejected". And again, I can also see why it raised concerns, but I can't see why it would be rejected when the feedback you gave is actually actionable and changeable. This is not an "insurmountable" amount of work. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

My advice would be to bring the article to GA status, as the process should ensure that there will be few if any remaining questions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

More than one month old

• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Ana Grozdanović
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Gottlob Herbert Bidermann
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Shrira-Pesenson equation
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Bonaparte
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Cherry Hill (author)
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Fulper Pottery Company
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad Tayrab (new reviewer needed to finish up)
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Tatar and Bashkir community in Japan
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Aihole Jain cave
• August 29: Template:Did you know nominations/King County Search and Rescue

Other nominations

• September 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Favre-Leuba
• September 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Comité Pro Acción Sindical
• September 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Franklin Anderson
• September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/William Hartnell
• September 7: Template:Did you know nominations/2026 Dambulla Sixers season
• September 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Cueyamil railway station (second opinion requested)
• September 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Physint
• September 10: Template:Did you know nominations/CART–IRL split
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Amdahl 470V
• September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Lombard's The Sentences (Gonville and Caius College MS 290/682)
• September 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Tamil Eelam (1984–2009)
• September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Hammerhead (mine)
• September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Lehmann
• September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Your Name Here (novel)
• September 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Johnson (defensive tackle, born 1965)
• September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/2019 Toronto feces attacks
• September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's singles
• September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/LuzViMinda (song)

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

• Only 5 of the original 27 nominations have been reviewed so far; posting here to prevent this section from being archived tomorrow. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7 (4 October)

Notes from the queue checks follow below.

Ernst Frey (nom)

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

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

Baptism Site International Orthodox University (nom)

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

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for taking the initiative and doing some improvements. I have expanded the curriculum section accordingly, let me know if any other changes are required. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Now the article is closely paraphrasing its source. Compare source: It will include approximately thirty (30) weeks of reading per year and is a four-year program based on a reading list of (50) classical books in the areas of world history, Christian spiritual writings, philosophy, world religions, ecology, world literature, and science.... These courses will carry no credits, but examinations will be conducted on a pass/fail basis with no numerical grades. As part of their studies, undergraduate students will participate in a spiritual retreat program specifically designed for them. Students will have the unique opportunity to spend a certain number of days in the heart of Al Maghtas, the UNESCO-recognized Baptism Site. The program begins with three days in the first year and goes up to forty days in the final year. As part of their studies, postgraduate students will also participate in the Program, however, for only seven days. with article: The first being the Great Books Program, which runs with the undergraduate curriculum and is a four-year program based on a reading list of approximately 50 classical works covering subjects including world history, Christian spiritual writings, philosophy, world religions, ecology, literature, and science. The program involves approximately 30 weeks of reading per year and is assessed on a pass/fail basis without academic credit... Undergraduate students also participate in an annual Spiritual Retreat Program at Al-Maghtas, with the duration increasing from three days in the first year to 40 days in the final year. Postgraduate students participate in a seven-day retreat. In addition to closely paraphrasing the source, it sounds like marketing material for the school instead of an encyclopedic treatment of its academic program. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Hopefully better now. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Squid on Strike (nom)

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

the Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide disgrees on collider, calling it generally reliable

I did find these collider sources which also talk about the episode . And this mary sue source Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

that NPPSG listing is based on the opinion of literally one discussion participant, and IME, Collider produces quite a lot of churn. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Might be worth taking to AfD if notability is in question. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'll give it a go. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sadads, a bit of initial feedback. The script doesn't make suggestions for pages that are in contentious topic areas. That's potentially a lot of articles. Additionally it doesn't make suggestions for pages that are GA nominees, where no GA review has started. For me that has reduced it's usefulness. TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Good call on the GAN articles -- its actually almost perfect for those (works best on longer articles with lots of content with sections). My harness lumped that in with the other "Quality article" types -readded. The only classes of controversial articles are the ones with talk page templates like

"Template:Contentious topics/talk notice",

"Template:Contentious topic/talk notice",

"Template:Ds/talk notice",

"Template:Gs/talk notice",

"Template:Arbitration Committee restriction",

"Template:Featured article candidates"

Basically I wanted the tool to be usable by as "early of a user as possible" so want to keep them on rails, especially when building the topic lists. I haven't hit limitations as an experienced user wanting to work on breaking news for example, Sadads (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sadads, I just ran it over Pistol Grip (Ben Roberts-Smith VC) and Crossing the Line (McKenzie book) (two articles I have put forward as GANs), and it has given me some useful points to consider prior to any review occuring. TarnishedPath^talk 05:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Nice! Yeah, I am fairly happy with the results so far -- it helps me get through the cognitive overwhelm that is sometimes involved in reading the whole article, where you start seeing lots of other problems to fix, whereas a good lead rewrite is a nice, parceabel short task you can do if you understand the topic area, Sadads (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

It's an interesting tool and I ran it on some of my articles where I have tried to make a lead, and its findings were broadly similar to my own conclusions. I don't think the prohibition on checking GAs, maybe also FAs, is needed. GA is (or attempts to be) a low bar for articles to clear. E.g., I'd love to know what it finds on A Tale of Two Nations, a GA I wrote with a one paragraph lede that is a bit short but that I feel decently summarizes it. I also think it's prominence, right next to Article and Talk, is a bit undue. Most editors won't need to rewrite an article's lede as much as they need to go to its talk, history, or the article itself. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree, that I'd like to see its usage to be expanded to current GAs. It would be nice to check articles that passed a while ago to see if they could do with improvement. TarnishedPath^talk 01:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

So what I am going to do @TarnishedPath @1brianm7, is make it possible to do "1 GA at a time" when reading the page, but not do it in Batch -- the Batch/Lead Worklist function encourages "show up and work quickly" type work on top of articles, and I don't want someone (especially newer/over enthusiastic editors) to suddenly "show up" on a well maintained GA and rewrite the lead.

I will add this tomorrow or the next day. I am running another data process, right now before I do that to make sure I understand the "scope" of the tool, but my intent is to really help experienced editors to "see" neglected leads/content Sadads (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/2

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

... that in 1967 the Cambodian Civil War began with a rebel assault on a Royal Khmer Socialist Youth co-operative farm? – Start points for conflicts tend to be more complicated than a single raid (see Beginning of World War II, for example), though if that's the balance of the scholarship no issues on my end.

... that the 2026 Leagues Cup final featured one of the fastest yellow cards in soccer history, issued just eight seconds into the match? – "One of" makes it less likely to be disproven than "the fastest" on its own, but marking for extra eyes just in case.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure if this would count as DYKINT given it is a sports hook and those seem to be hit and miss when it comes to interest, but could the 2026 Leagues Cup hook be fixed by changing it to "that the 2026 Leagues Cup featured a yellow card just eight seconds into the match?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The source was pretty clear on it and I have no reason to doubt its validity. (But don't mind the trim either.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• I do quite like the trim. Done, with a courtesy ping to @Morogris and Epicgenius: to keep them in the loop.15:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC) — Chris Woodrich (talk)

  I'm cool with the trim, thank you. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

King Simmons (nom)

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

Indeed, common in many parts of the U.S. and Canada, deer overpopulation being what it is. (I once had a teacher who hit so many deer with her convertible that we called it Deerslayer.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's more interesting to non-Western readers? It might stand out more to those where such incidents are far rarer, but I guess it depends on the circumstances of the deer hitting or how it happened. I don't see anything else interesting in the article, so maybe the hook wpuld be more interesting if it mentioned that it happened on the way to the airport to start his CFL career?

While not related to the hook, given that he is still alive, I don't know if "he was an avid golfer" is the right wording or not because that is the same wording used for deceased people. I would suggest a minor rewrite in case it really only refers to him no longer playing golf. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I skipped over this the other day when I was doing some promotions because I don't find it interesting. I saw in the nomination that the nominator thought it was of interest because the person's first name is King, and that didn't do anything for me. TarnishedPath^talk 02:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

yeah, also not super enticed by this hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

planned update

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

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

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

Thanks for the ping. Do you know when this is going to happen? I'm leaving on a road trip in a couple of days and won't have any real time to look at this until I get back next Friday. Can you hold off deploying this for a couple of weeks? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

yeah, no problem :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, one comment and one question. Firstly we use PEIS limits to trigger backlog mode and 2 sets a day mode, though the latter doesn't really work. We might need numerical triggers to replace PEIS. Secondly, how will reviewers see if an unapproved nomination is available for review if the discussion isn't transcluded? TSventon (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

the discussions will remain transcluded, it's just that the reply tool still won't work when viewing a nompage through a transclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we activated WP:DYKUBM when we felt that it was needed, rather than being forced to because of technical reasons. And I don't think 2-a-day mode is relevant to the PEIS issues at all - it's just if we have enough prep-builders and enqueuers to support that many hooks, no? ScalarFactor (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Two-a-day mode was one of our main tools to address PEIS issues. With this change, maybe we would need to change to number based, but I don't know the numbers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I haven't seen you in quite a long time on WT:DYK leek! But anyway, It's great that it will reduce the PEIS to DYK. The WP:FAC page has reached that limit today (as all FAC nominations get transcluded onto that page), although several nominations have since been closed. That's why FAC has rules that most templates cannot be used, which includes putting quotes in {{tq}} which is commonly used in DYK/GAN. (See also: today's WT:FAC discussion regarding PEIS)

I couldn't think of how many people only reply/add comments using the 'reply' button, but I assume that's likely users who use visual editor (as that is now the default for new editors, although I (almost) exclusively use the normal editor.) I use the 'reply' tool 90% of the time outside DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

good to see you, Juniper! hopefully next year I'll have some more time for it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)