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)

Excellent idea! I&I22 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Leaving a comment here so that this thread doesn't get archived. TarnishedPath^talk 02:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Stats table time!

Article	Date	Image	views	vph	DYK hook
Baranof totem pole	2026-08-09		19,650	818.7	... that the designer of the Baranof totem pole (pictured) did not mean to depict a naked Russian man?
El sol y la cruz	2026-08-09		3,570	148.8	... that Ángeles Romero Frizzi aimed for an Indigenous perspective in a history book about her own state, according to a reviewer?
Ángeles Romero Frizzi			2,824	117.6
Total			6,394	266.4
Native American Student and Community Center	2026-08-09		4,637	193.2	... that the Native American Student and Community Center in Portland, Oregon, is designed to resemble a tipi?
Truth Commission for the Sámi People	2026-08-09		6,264	261.0	... that Sweden's Truth Commission for the Sámi People leaves "reconciliation" out of its name, unlike similar inquiries in Norway and Finland?
Jorá language	2026-08-09		13,598	566.6	... that speakers of the Jorá language were massacred, rounded up in villages, and sold into slavery during the 1940s?
Shishō	2026-08-09		5,790	241.2	... that the tomb of the Okinawan king Shishō is now on the grounds of an air force base?
Ciguapa	2026-08-09		5,705	237.7	... that the Dominican folktale of the ciguapa was propagandized by the Rafael Trujillo regime to promote race mixing?
Te Whare Tīwekaweka	2026-08-09		3,490	145.4	... that Te Whare Tīwekaweka is the first album entirely in Māori to reach number one on the New Zealand album charts?
Complete Bible in Inuktitut	2026-08-09		3,829	159.5	... that the first Inuktitut Bible translated by native speakers was produced by a cathedral dean, a former heavy-equipment operator, a future mayor, a future member of the Order of Canada, and a former oilfield worker?
Ben Arreak			1,726	71.9
Andrew Atagotaaluk			1,616	67.3
Jonas Allooloo			1,506	62.8
James Nashak			1,399	58.3
Joshua Arreak			1,297	54.0
Total			11,373	473.9

Notes

I think 76,901 views across all hooks (assuming I did my copy-pasting correctly) is perfectly respectable, and I think we got a lot of really good articles on an area of history which isn't always covered, and we got those articles in front of a decent number of readers. For the Baranov pole hook, it also looks like it's resulted in a decent readership bump on many related articles (I know that's not a metric everybody tracks, but I like it because, imo, it shows we all got readers to engage more deeply in the subject area. ) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I do like seeing that extra engagement! Glad that we were able to introduce some people to broader topics related to indigenous peoples.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:38, 11 August 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)

Support this with the extension, but only because we missed the 80th anniversary. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Support w/ extension per nom. I have a hook to contribute at Air Matoa language, which has already been approved. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Nominations

• Template:Did you know nominations/Raijua (island), approved - promoted
• Template:Did you know nominations/Mandai (food) (food), approved - promoted to Prep 3
• Template:Did you know nominations/Di Depan Kelambu Terbuka (painting), approved - promoted
• Template:Did you know nominations/Hartini (wife of Sukarno), approved - promoted
• Template:Did you know nominations/Riau War (war), approved - promoted - promoted
• Template:Did you know nominations/Trijoto Abdullah (sculptor), approved - promoted
• Template:Did you know nominations/Abdurrahman Mohammad Fachir (ambassador), approved - promoted
• Template:Did you know nominations/Gatot Abdullah Mansyur (ambassador), approved - promoted
• Template:Did you know nominations/Rimbi Temple (Hindu temple), approved - promoted
• 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 - promoted

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)

  Template:Did you know nominations/Air Matoa language could be added if there's still space. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've just promoted a bunch. Just waiting on some quotes from @Crisco 1492 for Template:Did you know nominations/Trijoto Abdullah which I intend on promoting into the last available slot. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK, the set is full now. What do we do with the remaining nomination in the SOHA? Move it back to the normal approved area? TarnishedPath^talk 05:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Forget my last question. I've promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Mandai (food) to prep 3 as it's a nice photo. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! However, would it be possible to swap mandai with one of the ambassadors, per DYKVAR? While Abdurrahman Mohammad Fachir attained a higher position, the hook is still related to his ambassadorial career.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks muchly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:40, 11 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)

@TSventon thank you for sharing this insight! I did not know that photos would make for more work.

So this means that more people are learning about DYKs and participating in them? I myself did not know about DYKs until after participating in an edit-a-thon. Or/and more articles are being created? Probably both I imagine.

AI has increased people's ability to write with minimal effort. My profession requires me to write constantly so not such a big deal to do, but for many must have been a big barrier to article creation pre-ai big tech everywhere.

Is there a centralised list of work to be done in Wikipedia?

Perhaps it might be a good idea to put out a call for DYK editors/promoters? I am not shifitng this work onto others! I just am not yet involved in the Wikipedia assessment duties yet as creation/editing/translating articles appeals to me more.

Is there a central Wikipedia area that shows where the most editor support is needed? I&I22 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22, my, somewhat obvious, advice about photos, is go ahead if you have a good image that works at small scale and can be used on main page. You now have some experience of what kinds of image aren't suitable for main page.

The current backlog of nominations is because since 2024 we have stopped running 2 sets a day after 3 days rather than keeping going until the backlog is cleared. LLMs probably make the problem a bit worse.

There are lists of work suggestions, for example at Wikipedia:Task Center, I haven't seriously tried them myself. I think that, realistically, the editors who benefit or have benefitted from DYK need to take care of the admin. It is entirely usual to be more interested in your own content than other people's, but there are enough helpers to keep DYK going day to day. As a new DYK editor the hope is that you learn how the system works and start doing "quid pro quo" reviews once you have five nominations. TSventon (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again @TSventon! Very helpful. I am looking at the "how to DYK process" literatures and completely lost on where to start tbh. All good, tired now perhaps. Luckily, I am not afriad to make mistakes pfff so will dive in and help in the autumn.

Thanks also for the Task centre link, will check it out. I'll start with DYKs to properly understand the process/DYK wiki-culture and then can move onto other backlog reducing tasks. I&I22 (talk) 02:45, 2 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)

Breakout discussion re: WP:DYKTIMEOUT purpose, application, and wording

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)

If the first part says one thing, and the second part contradicts the first (or is ambiguous), then it is not "clear". Beyond which, the idea that an approved nom can timeout seems counterproductive (as it may in fact encourage drive-by, half-hearted reviews). Why bother doing careful, detailed, and thorough reviews if they are essentially rendered moot by this ambiguity? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Most of the review is just checking whether the article meets quality requirements, and has the benefit of improving the encyclopedia. The same as doing a review at FAC if the article doesn't become an FA. My understanding is that very few articles are rejected post-approval, as most promoters have very low standards of what is interesting and won't reject a recently-approved nom. The first part says that it happens under these conditions. The second part lays out a scenario where discretion should be exercised on one of the conditions. The only thing that post-approval noms can be rejected encourages is making hooks interesting. 1brianm7 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Once it has been determined that "the article meets quality requirements", etc., it's over a hurdle, and unless the reviewer has made a mistake, it's GTG. Apart from DYKINT, the rest of the points on the {{DYK checklist}} are objective. DYKINT and the accuracy, syntax, and precision of hooks is (rightly) the focus of most subsequent discussion. To my mind, this an even stronger way to make the case for not timing out reviewed noms. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Not everyone does an ironclad review. Sometimes reviewers miss copyvio or close paraphrasing, sometimes they miss the presence of unreliable sources, sometimes there's some issue of presentability that was not noted. And of course a promoter or queue mover might disagree with the reviewer about DYKINT; in those cases I tend not to reject but either decline to promote or, if already promoted, bump to another prep for a different promoter to consider. But there is nothing in WP:DYKTIMEOUT that indicates approved hooks are exempt from timing out; indeed the language, which encourages reviewers not to time out unapproved hooks, quite clearly indicates that approved hooks may be timed out. We should not be holding on indefinitely to hooks that no one is willing to promote, especially with such a backlog as we have now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

In practice, the encouragement is not about unapproved hooks but rather unreviewed hooks. A nomination not being approved after so long is definitely grounds for rejection, either a regular one or via timing out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree, my point is exactly this. If a nom has no chance of ever getting promoted, then don't review it and let it timeout (or reject it—obviously). Once the effort is invested doing a full review (which often includes engaging with the nominator to actively solicit modifications and improvements to the article), and the result is positive (approval), then is should be considered to have surpassed our first hurdle and acquired a certain protected status. Obviously, if some major issue escaped notice, then send it back to go. Otherwise, respect the good faith work that was invested (and the judgement of the reviewer) and consider it to be in a de facto "DYK pre-queue". This way, reviews actually have meaning and value. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that reviewers often miss things; almost every discussion on the page is an archive of things reviewers and promoters missed in the review. And if those issues don't get fixed promptly, or new hooks are not proposed, it is not reasonable for us to hold nominally "reviewed" hooks indefinitely once the hook is shown to have a defect that would prevent its appearing on the main page. "DYK pre-queue" is a meaningless status; hooks can and do get pulled from queue because of problems. Raising questions or flagging defects in a hook or in a review is by no means a lack of respect [for] the good faith work that was invested; it is identifying a problem, hopefully in sufficient time that it can be fixed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The salient point in your comment is "once the hook is shown to have a defect that would prevent its appearing on the main page". If no such defect is identified or if something needs tweaking in order to improve a hook or an article (per normal procedure), then why time out an otherwise perfectly fine nom (i.e., approved)? Also, a hook being "pulled" is a very different thing to a nom being timed out! Let's compare like to like—pulled hooks are usually rectified and eventually make it back into a subsequent set; timed out noms get binned. End of story.

In my view, what we ought to be doing is encouraging good, thorough reviews, and mostly accepting the outcome (i.e., respecting the reviewer's diligent, good faith work, assuming it's done well). This also should help save time and effort downstream—as the people doing the delicate and complex job of actually building the sets (preppers, queue-ers, admins, etc.) will, ideally, have less remedial clean-up to do. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0 @1brianm7Yes! These ideas sounds very very reasonable and in keeping with a compassionate humane pace/work environment to me. I have to say that Wikipedia is fun, but it's also a lot of unpaid work! Myself, I am not at all motivated by awards and badges only a job well-done and completed. Tbh it would have been very very very demoralising and off-putting to have my approved work time out due to missing a notice ( I accept that it was my fault to miss the notice for sure!). I know 3 days may seem like a long time not to respond, but when us editors have very too full lives, are not throroughly aware of all the Wikipedia rules, weird exhausting hours, with precarious finances, have multiple jobs in multilple languages across many time zones, families, have to travel, domestic duties, pets, many commitments 72 hours is not very long actually! My nightmare is wasted time working on things gah! As do not have a luxury of "spare time" to work with. I appreciate that your proposals work to encourage edtiors and respect everyone's efforts , while supporting the good faith value system of Wikipedia. Very encouraging and thank you for proposing them! I&I22 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I&I22, I counted the pipeline/backlog of unpromoted noms and found 279 on 31 Dec 2024, 361 on 31 Dec 2025 and 509 now. I think that, unfortunately, as a consequence of the increasing backlog, nominators will need to accept that there is a risk that their nominations will not get published due to time out. The problem has been discussed here at length, but nobody has been able to find an easy solution. TSventon (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon yessss, as always, action is the only answer? I can be a force in the autumn. For sure I will pitch in and gather others, create a little whirlwind task force in helping out as have benefited massively (joy and learning) from reading the DYKs, and have a contributed a few also. I appreciate that some are/will be missed! I despise wasted time and efforts in general, so am happy to know where to direct my energies. I will have no idea what I am doing to start... No doubt will get into trouble as usual, but am confident will figure it out corrected/redirected by others more DYK savvy. Even though it may seem that nothing has happened in all this writing of messages, it has been very useful in understanding the issues, for me anyways! And with that understanding of where I can be useful am prompted to pitch in and be of use. Will be useful to others also who have temperaments similar to mine, which are probably more commonly found in Wikipedia than other places. In warm solidarity and until soon, I&I22 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello to you you lovely 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest folx! TechnoSquirrel69 @Generalissima @Arconning @Magentic Manifestations @Sawyer777

The glorious DYK section is experiencing much chaotic backlog and needs support, could your contest possibly help out and support clearing this chaos also as part of the contest activities?

I am happy to pitch in later in August after the 20th - am travelling and working now so too tricky.

Any support would be much appreciated!

Together we stand...

Warm regards, I&I22 (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: I'm not sure exactly how the DCWC can help with clearing the backlog at DYK, but to avoid derailing this discussion, maybe you can raise this at one of our talk pages or at WT:DCWC instead. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 sounds good! Thank you, I&I22 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon: I am not suggesting that all nominations get published. That appears to be a misinterpretation of what I've said here. We all agree and accept that there is a risk that ... nominations will not get published. I am only proposing that a properly reviewed nom that possesses no "defect that would prevent its appearing on the main page" be largely exempt from DYKTIMEOUT.

In other words, since "Most of the review is just checking whether the article meets quality requirements, and has the benefit of improving the encyclopedia" (which, according to our guidance, is essentially the raison d'être of DYK itself), and DYKINT is generally understood to be subjective (and ultimately up to the discretion of the preppers, queuers, and admins building the sets), lets take "approved" () at face value and say that barring an error on the part of the reviewer or some significant policy breech or other disqualifying event, these noms are approved, accepted, and awaiting promotion and a slot in a set—not conditional upon taste, time, or whim. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon A partial solution would be to add an extra Prep like I suggested to give more room to promote nominations. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I wonder how much of that is just the time of the year. Wikipedians are more active in the Northern summer and less active during the Western holiday season. Do you have these statistics for the entire year. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7: I am just counting noms in old versions of the approved and unapproved pages. We changed the rule to stop runs of 2 sets a day after 3 days in 2024. Stats of pipeline/backlog of unapproved (N) and approved (A) noms:

• 279 (31 Dec 2024 93 N + 186 A)
• 268 (30 Jun 2025 136 N + 132 A), down 11
• 361 (31 Dec 2025 143 N + 218 A), up 93
• 428 (30 Jun 2026 124 N + 304 A), up 67 TSventon (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, Naruto. The guidance specifically refers to unpromoted nominations, which encompasses approved noms. And the language requesting that editors review unreviewed nominations instead of timing them out indicates that the primary intended recipient for TIMEOUT is approved hooks lingering without promotion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not how it works in practice. In the past, there was resistance to closing noms that never had a review or a full review, even when they went past the two month timeline. DYKTIMEOUT in practice was more about giving permission to close nominations that had yet to be approved but had stalled for one way or another. It could apply to approved nominations that weren't promoted, but it wasn't the original intention. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If the original intention was to clear out the deadwood, then let's make it say (and do) that. A reviewed, approved nom generally has a good shot at being promoted (or at least a much better shot than a non-reviewed nom). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: It's rarer than unapproved, but no, in my experience it does happen (or has at least has been discussed on approved noms and was sidestepped) and that was the intent of the text. Approved noms just usually don't make it to two months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The guidance is ambiguously written. So much so that it essentially cancels itself. Read it. There are three sentences (and a link to an essay), each of which implicitly contradicts the others. This leaves it open to random application based on personal preference rather than any clear policy consensus about what we actually mean. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@theleekycauldron, we could find that a lot of approved noms hit 2 months if the pipeline of unpromoted noms approaches 60 days. TSventon (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Huh, that is interesting, thanks. (Also something crazy is going on with the formatting). 1brianm7 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Breakout discussion re: stats

• The fact that this is happening fairly often recently, as a side effect of a larger number of DYKs being promoted within days of nomination and review, suggests that, even if it doesn't usually happen much, it should be clarified. Nominators are frustrated, with good reason. When their nominations are sitting there awaiting a promoter and by policy they can't do anything about it, they will get even more frustrated. It's possible that we could lose some dedicated DYK volunteers in the aftermath. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492 and 1brianm7: I checked the stats for the pipeline/backlog of unapproved (N) and approved (A) noms (count as at midnight UTC, including special occasions):
• 273 (30 Jun 2023 138 N + 135 A)
• 288 (31 Dec 2023 198 N + 90 A), up 15
• 235 (30 Jun 2024 132 N + 103 A), down 53
• 279 (31 Dec 2024 93 N + 186 A), up 44
• 268 (30 Jun 2025 136 N + 132 A), down 11
• 361 (31 Dec 2025 143 N + 218 A), up 93
• 428 (30 Jun 2026 124 N + 304 A), up 67
• 527 (3 Aug 2026 170 N + 357 A), up 99
• 540 (5 Aug 2026 12:00 UTC 170 N + 370 A), see Not approved and Approved, up 113

The WP:DYKTIMEOUT rule was introduced in mid 2024, when we had a pipeline of 235 noms (about 29 days at 8 a day). We now have a pipeline of 527 noms (about 59 days at 9 a day). That means that time out is now likely to catch fairly average noms, rather than noms that have been waiting to be promoted for an unusually long time. And more nominators will get frustrated, unless we can find a workaround. TSventon (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• As a short-term measure, if we are able to get the queues in a position where we can do a two-day run of two sets per day, that might start the healing process (can't do three days, as there is a SOHA). I'll see about queuing another set or two later today.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I was wondering whether it would be possible to plan to run two sets a day once a week? It wouldn't always be enough, but it would be a start. The current requirement to have seven filled preps to trigger a three day run sets quite a high bar. TSventon (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• We do seem to be in a weird spot where nothing quite sits right. I don't think we have enough people-power to do a regular two-sets-a-day run, and we could have an issue where people fight over the sets with more exposure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: thank you for your work over the last couple of days. I think that a pipeline of around 500 should be recognised as an emergency, which will cause major problems with time out, unless 2 a day is used. I have updated my stats above to show that the pipeline had increased to 540 at 5 Aug 2026 12:00 UTC (60 days at 9 a day). TSventon (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wasn't just me - Launchballer came in clutch, and of course quite a few preppers. I do agree that a pipeline of 500 is a heck of a lot, and will queue another prep or two after work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I have added 30 Jun 2023. TSventon (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Queue 4 (8 August)

I've just moved Prep 4 to Queue. The first hook is one I've promoted so I'd appreciate if someone else could review it. That said @TechnoSquirrel69 has previously moved it to a Queue, and then back again after being advised that it was a SOHA. So perhaps it doesn't need further review?
I'll add comments about specific hooks below. TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you can rely on TS69’s queue check. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

As this is the first set I've ever moved from prep to queue (I've mostly been involved in promoting to preps previously), I'd appreciate if an experienced queuer could review all of the below as well as the rest of what is in the set to give me assurance that I'm not bonkers and that I haven't missed anything. TarnishedPath^talk 11:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

99 John Street (nom)

• ... that, when New York City's 99 John Street was being converted to apartments, a supermarket was built to attract residents to the area?

@Epicgenius, Edward056686, and NewAccount7295:, it doesn't strike me as being of particular note that a supermarket is built near a new housing development. This fails WP:DYKINT to me. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, the supermarket was built in the building to attract residents from nearby. However, might it be worth swapping it out with one of the other hooks? – Epicgenius (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, where I'm from it's not that unusual to have a large apartment complex end up with a supermarket at the bottom. Lets see what other uninvolved regulars here have to say. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, what I meant that I was agreeing that ALT3 is maybe not as interesting as the others. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'd personally go with ALT0, myself, in terms of INT. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that ALT0 is more interesting. Searching online has led me to believe that it generally takes months of work to construct the frame of a skyscrapper, so 22 days would be out of the ordinary. @Epicgenius, @NewAccount7295 and @Edward056686 thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 01:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Like I said before, we both found the current hook ALT3 to be among the most interesting. You don't have to have knowledge about how skyscrapers work to understand it fully. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  ALT0 is fine with me. I'm fine with any of the hooks actually (hence why I proposed them), but I put ALT0 first in the nomination page because I thought it would be the most interesting. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK, given Epicgenius, Chris and myself think that ALT0 is the most interesting. Unless there are any other editors dissenting from that, I'm going to suggest that's what we stay with. TarnishedPath^talk 13:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it is more interesting than other hooks that have been run on DYK before. I actually found it among the most interesting of the four proposed hooks, which is something the reviewer Edward056686 agreed about. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've bumped this back to Prep 7 while it still being discussed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Raymond of Poitiers (nom)

• ... that Raymond of Poitiers did not want to win a siege, so he played dice in his tent instead?

@Surtsicna, Jon698, and NewAccount7295: the quote given in the nomination, which supports the hook, states Not surprisingly, Joscelin II and Raymond of Poitiers proved to be unwilling allies; reluctant to assist in a campaign that—if successful—would force theFranks to cede Antioch. Consequently, they enraged John II by occupying their time on campaign idling in their tents. There is no mention of dice in that quote. In the article a different source is used to support the claim (Runciman 1952); however, I've been unable to access it through Google books. Can we get quote/s which fully support the hook please? TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• @TarnishedPath: Per the book on page 216 "Instead of joining in the combat, the two Latin princes spent their days in their tents playing at dice." Jon698 (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  • This is in addition to the rest of the page establishing that the two Latin princes were Raymond and Joscelin. Jon698 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Jon698 ty, I'll remove the under discussion tag. TarnishedPath^talk 23:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Agent Kim Reactivated (nom)

• ... that a critic described Agent Kim Reactivated as a blend of Taken and John Wick?

@D.18th, Dclemens1971, and Beta Beta Beta: I see a couple of issues here. Firstly, in the article it states that James Melzer of MovieWeb compared the series' narrative elements and action style to franchises such as Taken, John Wick, and Reacher, noting that it builds substantial suspense before transitioning into action. This doesn't support the hook. The source, states "Part Taken and part John Wick, ...", which does support the hook. The article needs to be update to more clearly support the hook. Secondly, most of the claims made in the Special appearances section are without citations. This needs to be addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• • Cast lists, per MOS:FILMCAST, are presented as credited in the film; thus, the film is the source assuming they are credited. That being said, the entire cast section is bloated and could reasonably be trimmed to just the main cast. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    • I've also refactored the text to specifically parallel the hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

      Cheers for that, I've removed the under discussion tag. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

    Cheers for that. You can probably tell how much I've written in articles about films. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Arenaza (nom)

• ... that a brand of cream cheese was created in a small Argentine town?

@Lynch44, StonyBrook, and NewAccount7295:, this is not interesting. StonyBrook, you even state in your review that it's not that interesting, so I'm not sure why you placed your approval mark in the nomination. NewAccount7295, I'm not sure why you promoted this after you ought to have read the reviewer stating that it's not that interesting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath:, you can just pull and reject it. I'm getting surgery done tomorrow and I have no interest in dealing with this, unless you find any of the other two ALTs interesting. Lynch44 11:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Lynch44, best of luck with your surgery and I'll pull this. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'm going to re-suggest ... that there is a small town inside Lincoln?, proposed by User:StonyBrook, for this one. Personally, I'm fine with cream cheese; it highlights how certain things taken for granted in the Global North are also enjoyed and expanded upon around the world. However, the Lincoln hook is definitely a more traditionally hooky item. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492, I'm sorry I don't get it. Is it a play on the name of the former president, or on the fact that there are Lincoln counties in several US states? I'm happy to reverse the nomination being withdrawn. TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it's a play on how one would not expect a Lincoln in Argentina. That being said, if Lynch would rather withdraw, no worries.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'll reopen it and promote to a prep as I've already filled the spot in the queue. I'll link the district in Argentina though or we'll get accused of being misleading at ERRORS. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've re-promoted it to Prep 3, with the alternative hook. TarnishedPath^talk 12:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath You may be right but since it was approved I decided to run it, and out of the hooks that one stood out to me the most, and @Crisco 1492 I find the current hook to be even more uninteresting. I didn't even get what it was supposed to mean when I read it. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Confirming that while I did approve the hook, I also found it to be a bit uninteresting, so I added another hook that I thought more interesting; i.e. the insinuation that a small town might actually exist inside Lincoln (that'll make them click)! I see at least Chris Woodrich understood where I was coming from, and I thought this kind of hook was SOP at DYK; but like him, and as I've said above, I have no particular problem with the current hook. StonyBrook _babble 18:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Honestly, "a Lincoln" would be even hookier (think the car), but it's not as gramatically common to refer to a province/county with an indefinite article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Right, so that's why I don't understand the whole error thing; it's possible for a small town to be inside a geographic Lincoln, but also remotely possible for a small town (of microbes perhaps, in Abraham, or a scale model town in the car) to be inside Lincoln, could it not? StonyBrook _babble 18:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  My reference to WP:ERRORS, was that it is not uncommon for hooks to be raised there for being potentially misleading. Hense, my linking of Lincoln to the article about the place in Argentina. Ps, place an indefinite article in front of Lincoln might make it hookier; however, it would be as Chris states gramatically uncommon. I have no strong opinion either way. TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• If the hook was ... that there is a small town associated with Lincoln? then it could cover myriad possibilities; Abraham, the car company (think small Town Car), various cities, etc. However, not as interesting as "inside" IMO. StonyBrook _babble 19:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've bumped this back to Prep 1 while discussion is ongoing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is what I've got so far to expand on the above theme: "... that Argentina's Lincoln boasts a small town? Variations of this hook: Buenos Aires's or South America's instead of Argentina's; 'the Lincoln of' or 'the Lincoln in' Argentina instead of Argentina's Lincoln; has instead of boasts. What I like about this hook: Before clicking on it, the reader might think a descendent of Lincoln's in Argentina owns a town, or maybe it's a Ford Motor Company town, or maybe Ford of Argentina makes smaller Town Cars. StonyBrook _babble 18:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

No opinion on the hook setup, however shouldn't User:StonyBrook also be credited with Arenaza for coming up with the hook? Currently just lists me (@TarnishedPath:, surgery went well, thanks for the well-wishes). Lynch44 19:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't generally give credit for coming up with hooks; however, given StonyBrook has edited the article to add material in support of the nomination, I've added them for credit to the prep area. See Special:Diff/1368077040. TarnishedPath^talk 22:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I've bumped this back to Prep 4. My reading is that there is consensus to run some variation focusing on the town being in Lincoln; however, there needs to be agreement on the specific wording. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, @Lynch44 and @StonyBrook what are we going with?

Suggestions include:

• ... that Argentina's Lincoln boasts a small town?
• ... that there is a small town associated with Lincoln?
• ... that there is a small town inside Lincoln? (current)

I'm suggesting we stay with the current hook? TarnishedPath^talk 03:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Current hook is fine by me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• The current hook is fine. Lynch44 10:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• +1 Good job, all (Next time I'll be looking for ... that the outlaw in Lincoln loved cheese? ;) StonyBrook _babble 12:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 4 and Prep 6

NewAccount7295, thank you for promoting articles, but Prep 4 (August 15) and Prep 6 (August 17) are for Korean Independence Day and Indonesian Independence Day SOHA. KimYubin (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If Prep 7 (or a different one) is promoted to queue the hooks can be moved out of those ones. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• NA and I have cleared out those preps. NewAccount7295, again you populated the quirky slot in the bottom prep (diff). As previously explained, please leave the quirky slot in the bottom prep open to allow for potential bumps and delays. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and swapped the hooks to Prep 5 while the remaining ones were pulled or swapped to Prep 3 by @Crisco 1492. I suggest the ones that were pulled are readded once another preparation area is opened. (I did populate the quirky slot, but I found it most important to leave four hooks open, since you can easily change the placement) NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• While I appreciate that, given the recent issues it is better to follow the letter of the guidelines.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492 Prep 6 was filled again by @Beta Beta Beta. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Didn't realize, whoops. Beta Beta Beta - talk 22:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Beta Beta Beta If we fill Queue 7 and Queue 1 we'll have enough room for additional preps. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• I've moved Prep 7 to queue, but frankly I want to finish uploading my images to Commons by the end of the day so I'm not going to be queuing anything else today. Please feel free to move the items out of Prep 6 and into Prep 7. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That makes six queues. I'm heading out now, but if no-one takes the last one before I get back I will.--Launchballer 22:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Unfortunately, with the series of SOHA's we'll need to do quite the little dance to keep everything on the right date if we do a burst of two-per-day. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've queued the set anyway. I believe it's a case of knocking the otters, the Indigenous hooks, and the Korean set back three. I haven't yet decided whether to ask for more eyes on Enid Sinclair or to swap it out.--Launchballer 00:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks muchly. Hopefully that will give an impetus to clear out the oldest noms. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I kicked Sinclair back per WP:DYKVAR.--Launchballer 03:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: The Korean hooks were in the right place and are now where the Indonesian hooks should be, is there a reason you moved them?--Launchballer 13:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I had assumed we would be back to two-a-day after the August 9th SOHA, but rethinking it there is plenty of time to move the Korea and Indonesia hooks if we continue a run. I've rolled back my edits. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

For prep 4, we asked for the photo of the liberation of Korea to be the photo hook. The set is about Korean independence day and that photo is *the* iconic photo of the liberation. Could that be swapped out? grapesurgeon (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• grapesurgeon, there were several images proposed. Was there a discussion with a broader consensus here? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• The shape of the Korean peninsula article wasn't originally part of this set. KimYubin nominated that one I'm pretty sure. They had previously consented to the liberation photo being the main photo for the set. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Alright. My thinking was that the liberation photo doesn't show up well at 100px, but there is a previous agreement re: the image.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The liberation photo is definitely iconic, but I noticed that the higher-resolution version was uploaded with the comment "im pretty certain this photo is actually copyrighted though". The US PD rationale appears to depend on its date and place of first publication- I may be missing something obvious but am having trouble finding a publication date (versus when the photograph was approx. produced/taken). Best, Zzz plant (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Okay... if we can't be 100% sure, we should probably run the mini-Korean peninsula. — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• @Zzz plant:}@Chris Woodrich: Found an attestation to it in a 1971 newspaper , thus making it c:Template:PD-South Korea-photo-1977. Can we go back to using that as the photo hook? grapesurgeon (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, could you point to about where on that clipping the photo is attested? I'm having trouble finding it (but also struggling with the website's zoom feature + google translating). But overall if there's support for it being published pre-1977 in South Korea I think my concern would be resolved. Zzz plant (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

My bad, URLs on this website are funky due to Javascript shenanigans. This link should work; it's on page 5 of this edition. grapesurgeon (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice find, the photo was definitely published by 1971 so this looks good to me. Zzz plant (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Twice a day?

We've currently got 6 queues full and it's just after midnight UTC. Do we want to do a run of 12 hour sets? Ps, if we do, we will need to move some hooks around to account for SOHAs. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I mean, I'd rather have that than deal with more TIMEOUTS, especially since an item I submitted and an item I reviewed are next on the chopping block. I think 2x a day for a couple days should help. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

(ec) See #Prep 4 and Prep 6. I'm going to ping DYK admins when I've finished checking the set I queued and have rearranged the hooks.--Launchballer 01:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer cheers. TarnishedPath^talk 01:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@DYK admins: I finished adjusting the sets, can someone flick the 2-a-day switch?--Launchballer 02:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Switch flipped. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  @DYK admins: I believe we need to switch back to 24 hour sets for the current SOHA set, thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Switch flipped. Am on mobile, but looks like no issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

After thinking about this, I have also proposed additional options about adding GAN/GAR-style time limits on nominations once a review has started. Note that all of these options may allow extensions if requested at WT:DYK, whether it be due to extenuating circumstances, or for legitimate reasons like waiting for access to a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Option B with a preference for talk page messages. Pings get lost. TarnishedPath^talk 06:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

More overhead, but could this distinguish between "nominator is actively editing" and "nominator is not actively editing"? One week can very easily coincide with real life responsibilities (from finals and travel to medical emergencies and "my children got the flu and I can't check Wikipedia this week"). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that "nominator is not actively editing" is a common reason to close nominations, along with "not replying despite activity elsewhere", the proposal does not distinguish between the two. However, extenuating circumstances like what you said could allow for extensions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Asking people to petition for extensions places a burden that will, at times, be too much for an individuals -- so rather than ask the community to re-open a nom which it would like to, they might not and we would loose the nom. And, maybe, the nominator. Is that tradeoff worth it to you? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If it's something that they can mention ahead of time, for example "due to X, I will be away for a period" or "I will be unable to work on this because of X", reviewers or the community will likely be willing to give grace. Also, the proposal is not about reopening closed nominations, but rather what to do with nominations that have not been resolved within a certain amount of time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point -- you can't schedule certain real life events, such as most medical emergencies. If somebody gets called away from the internet (or even just Wikipedia) for a couple weeks because of a real life emergency, then comes back to find out that somebody reviewed their DYK nom, found an issue they could have corrected, but the nom timed out and was closed, when it wouldn't have been closed under the old system, then the community will need to decide if it wants to reopen their nomination or not.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Option B; notifying the nominator is a good idea. The later options mean that a DYK can be closed because of the inactivity of a reviewer, which I don't like. Also, I don't think this applies after a DYK is approved. WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Option E: Not because I think the status quo is perfect (it's obviously in need of improvement and simplification), but I don't think adding more rules and complexity is the solution either. It's already rather difficult for even the most experienced DYKers to master the nuances and ins and outs of the "rules" and accepted practice (or, indeed, agree upon their "proper" application). For outsiders, DYK-curious newbies, and DYK neophytes it's neigh unto impossible. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Question: I'm leaning towards Option B, but I'd like clarity on when the clock starts – or rather, when the ping/usertalk message occurs. Are we waiting a week with no response, then leaving a talk page message, then waiting another week? Are we leaving a talk message immediately after the review, and the clock starts then? If so, what if there are subsequent comments over the course of several days, then a period of no response? Another talk page reminder, or is the original clock still running? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that it's generally good practice for reviewer's to leave a user talk message straight after leaving feedback in the nomination that requires attention. At least I try to make that my practice. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see that become standard practice no matter the result of this RFC, but upon further reflection, I think I'm landing on Option E per Cl3phact0. If Option B were enacted, I'd like to see some sort of carveout or leniency given to newer nominators, and I worry that would take the teeth out of the rule and make it largely ineffective. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Option E. I would go with the status quo for now, but GLL makes a good point. Sometimes, there are things going on in people's personal lives that prevent them from editing for more than a week. When I was a younger editor, I remember not being able to edit for two weeks at a time when I was preparing for college exams. Option B and F are my second and third choices. I find options C and D to be way too strict, and option A would be assuming the nominator has watchlisted the nomination and is looking out for comments, which isn't always the case, so I would oppose A, C, and D. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know how many times I have asked users to please not start RFC's on this page without discussing the wording of the RFC first! It happens again and again. We really need a note at the top of the page prohibiting it.

Having said that, Option D probably comes closest to my conception of how this might best work - but I think it should be at least a month, not two weeks - and perhaps allow somebody to put up their hand to persevere with the review if they are so inclined. But again, this really needed more discussion IMO before jumping ahead to an RFC. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, Option E is for the status quo (no change to the current rules), but your opinion seems to be proposing a different alternative altogether, closer to Option C or D. Were you suggesting an additional option rather than supporting D/C/E? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, misread that, it was supposed to be option D - fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I have added an Option F because I think two weeks isn't nearly long enough to resolve issues on a nomination, and that is what I am going to !vote for - though I still think users should have the right to adopt a nomination for review if they think it worth the effort. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• option F then B, life happens and 1 week is exceptionally harsh. I would prefer an in-between of 2 weeks and then a close, because the majority of us are not addicted to being on project the entire waking life.--Kevmin § 15:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• I think we generally should have more ways to remove nominations, for example by various forms of "time out" (better than explicitly discussing DYKINT in my view), to help us select the best nominations and not run boring ones, especially during backlog times. I am not sure the proposals are perfect yet, though. Options C/D are close to allowing reviewers to reject any nomination by simply stalling for a week or two (and need better ways of dealing with reviewers that go AWOL). It may be better to ask for reasonably quick responses from nominators. If reviews happen within a week or two after nominating, I think it can be expected that people stick around to see what happens (or just not get a DYK slot). Not getting a chance to put an article on DYK is not the end of the world and not a serious punishment, so we should not pretend it is. So something like B might be ok, but I don't expect it to help with the backlog much. —Kusma (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Options C and D only refer to nominators not being responsive, not reviewers. Reviewers not being responsive is another issue and may require a different discussion to find a solution to. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Spitballing here, but allow a re-review of a stalled nomination due to reviewer going AWOL to count as a 2nd QPQ during backlog mode? Allow 2 re-reviews to count as a QPQ? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  I was thinking that your first suggestion may be helpful, with the proviso that any subsequent review is a full review and not merely a "yep you've fixed the issue raised previoulsy and here's a tick". TarnishedPath^talk 06:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  How often to reviewers go AWOL? Is this a common occurrence? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think a lot of people don't put nominations on their watchlists, while they are progress and I'd say that for both nominators and reviewers. Add to that pings not always working and things slide. TarnishedPath^talk 06:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• I do find myself leaning towards Option D or Option F, with the caveat that the nominator should be notified. Things can slip people's minds, so a gentle reminder would not be out of place.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• In principle, Option F, since if a review begins and can't get to resolution within a month it's probably doomed anyway, but in point of fact, Option E, because Option F makes no reference to a review where the nominator is responsive and the reviewer disappears or asks for a new reviewer, and I hate to penalize a nominator in this situation. I am also supportive of clarifying language that approved and unpromoted nominations may be marked for closure after two months, as in general cases a nomination unpromoted that long probably has some implicit problems of interestingness or other defects that are keeping promoters away. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Dclemens1971: To clarify, this RfC only applies to nominators being unresponsive. How to deal with reviewers being unresponsive will be the subject of a future, separate discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Good point, and I guess I should have read the introduction more carefully; I read the options presented more literally. In the specific case of an unresponsive nominator, B, D, or F is acceptable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Dclemens1971: You say that you are "supportive of clarifying language that approved and unpromoted nominations may be marked for closure after two months"—I think that this is the wrong approach. With the exception of cases where the reviewer has missed a major issue, the opposite should apply. Correctly reviewed and approved noms should generally be exempt from TIMEOUT. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've seen you make that point above and I fundamentally disagree. Even setting aside the issue that an approved nom may not have been correctly reviewed, it is unfair to new noms if unpromoted noms are permitted to remain at the top of the approved list indefinitely. It's definitionally a situation in which TIMEOUT should apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  We disagree. That's okay. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think DYKTIMEOUT should apply to approved nominations as well, given that the language suggests it and there's nothing in it that actually bans approved nominations from being timed out. What I am against is it being mandatory: for cases where an approved nomination is eligible to be timed out, the option to promote should also be available. Basically, such cases should be treated on a case-by-case basis rather than them being timed out just because they reached two months. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  The language is unclear and ambiguous at best. It suggests nothing and begets confusion. The first sentence says one thing, the second sentence contradicts the first, and the third sentence introduces a new concept ("on hold") without defining it. In practice, it can be applied however the user wishes (i.e., "a case-by-case basis"). Only erroneously approved noms that are defective to the point of ineligibility should time out—otherwise, why bother with reviews at all? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  The first and second statements are not in contradiction. The first says that nominations can be timed out. It does not mean they should or must. The second tells that for nominations still awaiting a review, timing out is an option, but actually reviewing is encouraged. I agree that the third sentence needs to be clarified somehow: I think Launchballer was the one who added that to the guidelines? It should be modified to say that nominations on hold due to a deletion or merge discussion should not be timed out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  The third sentence could just as easily say that "an approved nomination or a nomination on hold hold due to a deletion or merger discussions should not be timed out unless it is found to be ineligible." -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Option B, F or A (for B, a ping to the nominator suffices for me). Life happens, but that should not be a reason for reviewers and overworked promoters to be left hanging on the vine where there are other more engaged nominator submissions to choose from. Oppose C, D and E, because I am uncomfortable with squeezing nominators who are actively working to achieve compliance into an only one- or two-week window, and the status quo is unacceptable. StonyBrook _babble 12:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Up to the discretion of the relevant administrator, sometimes the nominator's attention may not be needed, in which case they should not be required to reply. If it is needed, the relevant administrator should choose when enough time passed using their best judgment. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Options D and B: One month is a long time, and close within a week and/or without a talk page ping is too harsh so oppose A, C, and F. Therefore, two weeks is enough and a reminder ping on user talk page is a good idea. M. Billoo 17:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Options F and B, provided a talk page message is required (not everyone has pings enabled, so I oppose Option A). Oppose Option C or D given concerns about the excessive time crunch, and Option E given the backlog would be worse if we did nothing. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Potential nom for Project Sunrise (Qantas)

Is this article eligible for DYK? I've tried to figure this out few times using DYK Check tool, but it's not clear. Please also see Talk page discussion—there's a catchy hook in the making: ...that Qantas set a record for the longest flight by a commercial jet airliner, covering nearly 24 thousand kilometres in 24 hours and 24 minutes? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0, I think it is, but the tool is going to give incorrect results with those dot points. Irrespective, those dot points should probably be converted into paragraphs. It would read better and then the tool won't give the wrong answer. TarnishedPath^talk 13:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason why DYKcheck excludes bullet points from its analysis? I know lists are generally excluded from prose counts, but in some cases they do technically count as prose depending on how they're written. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's because we have to have 1,500 characters of "readable prose". A lot of the time where someone might use bullet points they consist of not fully formed sentences and that wouldn't be what a lot of people call "readable prose" In this circumstance the bullet points have whole paragraphs in them, so it is "readable prose". TarnishedPath^talk 00:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition, regardless of eligibility issues, that hook will need to be rewritten since it's an EGG violation (the link makes it seem like it's about Qantas when it's in fact about Project Sunrise). I'm not sure if changing what's piped in that wording would work either (i.e. linking "longest flight by a commercial jet airliner") because it would seem like it's talking about longest flights in general rather than PS. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether {{Timeline-event}} bullet points count as prose or not, I don't think the article would be eligible per WP:DYKSPLIT, not having been expanded fivefold since its split from Kangaroo Route. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's let the DYK regulars guide us, shall we? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Rosbif73. To qualify the article will probably need to go through GAN and be promoted to GA, as it is realistically too long to expect a 5x expansion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep Area 4

Lunar GNSS Receiver Experiment (nom)

Prep 4: @Beta Beta Beta: I mentioned in my review that the article wasn't created by the nominator, but promoted to mainspace, and asked to give credit to the creator of the original draft, User:Newman ash2112. Can you please check that out? Шахматист2025 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, fine with me. The DYK is well in line with the content of the page Newman ash2112 (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for considering this. Please, let me know if any actions are expected on my side to give the author credit. AxelCruise (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 2 (13 August 2026)

Scarlett Archer (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, and Usernameunique: I don't personally see how this meets WP:DYKINT- "acting as someone who is acting" is a common critique of actors. The inverse is often discussed too (as in, the best actors do not seem like they are acting). I am also wary of this on a DYKBLP level. I don't think we should highlight "... that [someone thinks this living person is bad at her profession]?", even if sourced and put into proper context within the article itself. I would consider swapping in ALT1, but I don't find that to meet DYKINT either-- many actresses (tbh, many women in general) have worked as waitresses at some point in their lives. Zzz plant (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the point - the hook was that she was portraying a con artist and hence that is why she was "acting as someone who is acting". An alternative could be "... that after joining Emmerdale, Scarlett Archer did not get spotted often in public by viewers as she looked different to her character?" or "... that Scarlett Archer was praised for her "blood-curdling" and "ear-shattering" screams in The Case of the Frightened Lady?"DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If the context of her playing a con artist is required for the hook to land, MP readers who don't have outside knowledge of her role won't get it either. Zzz plant (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Actors do not play "someone who is acting", they play a character. The point was that it is unusual for actors to act as "someone who is acting", (as in their character is acting), which will lead to readers wanting to learn more. It does not require knowledge of who she is playing for the hook to land... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

To me "... that Scarlett Archer was called a bad actress as she was "acting as someone who is acting" on Emmerdale" reads as saying she gave a poor performance because it seemed like she was acting (to put it another way, giving a "stagey" performance). It did not occur to me to interpret it the way that you are suggesting. Zzz plant (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The sources say it that way: maybe changing it to playing "someone who is acting" or something along those lines would be good. If not, I have put other hooks below. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• (ec) Would "... that Scarlett Archer cried into carbonara until breaking into daytime soaps?" or something similar work? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think that would be a good idea :) Though Emmerdale is not a daytime soap DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I think the "crying into carbonara" quote would definitely offer a good basis for a hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  I was thinking so too, I was initially going to propose it but I was worried it would breach DPYKBLP rules. I think "... Scarlett Archer cried into pasta dishes before she was cast in Emmerdale?" could work, or one of the 2 hooks I proposed above DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else, surely we all know what carbonara is?--Launchballer 16:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Not everyone does, but it's because she cried in other pasta dishes too DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing that in the article, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  The sentence is "There have been so many times when I was crying into people's carbonara at work. You have to have thick skin. I don't think actors talk enough about how difficult it is and the amount of rejections you have to go through." I put pasta as I think it is easier to identify and does not imply that she cried only in carbonara. This does seem to be getting unnecessarily nitpicky. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, the sentence only specifies the one dish, and although I doubt she only cried into carbonara, we should go with the sources (I also think carbonara is punchier than pasta dishes; same reason it's "teardrops on my guitar" and not "teardrops on my stringed instrument" or "clouds in my coffee" instead of "clouds in my caffeinated beverage"). That being said, Zzz plant raised the question of DYKINT, and if they want to run with pasta dishes, no issues there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  I do not have an issue with carbonara being mentioned (I mean obviously, I wrote the article in the first place), I just thought pasta sounds punchier than pasta dishes and does not imply that she only cried into pasta dishes, which I think could potentially cause issues. It is not a big deal though. I still think the original hook was the most interesting and has been misinterpreted above. I have also proposed 2 other hooks that no one has yet commented on... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• This is a good angle. Zzz plant (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 3 (10 August 2026)

Saw: Genesis (nom)

• I moved this to prep, and thus another pair of eyes is needed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Omg sorry, I was working on queue checks for this set and moved this back. Feel free to revert me. Zzz plant (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  No worries. This addresses my issue; I can look at Hoffman. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, Hoffman is good to go. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zzz plant: Have you looked at Stupid Song yet or do you need me to?--Launchballer 16:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, the timestamp was different for me (~4:51) but otherwise all good. Zzz plant (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Stupid Song (nom)

• I moved this to prep, and thus another pair of eyes is needed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

List of astronauts educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (nom)

@NewAccount7295, RabidTuberculosis, and Bneu2013: Hook says 44 astronauts, total, but the article says 44 NASA astronauts as well as 2 foreign agency astronauts and three private astronauts. The hook fact thus does not reflect the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Just change to 44 NASA astronauts or 49 astronauts. I prefer the former. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I've changed it to 44 NASA astronauts. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies for delay: yes, specifying 44 NASA astronauts is best given the hook focusing on 2 NASA astronauts. Appreciate the edit! RabidTuberculosis (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion for admins

Dear admins and template editors, firstly thank you to @Crisco 1492 and Launchballer: and prep builders for starting a 2 a day run. The pipeline of unpromoted nominations hit 540 (60 days at 9 a day) yesterday, see my summary at #Breakout discussion re: stats, which may cause a lot of nominations to fail under WP:DYKTIMEOUT unless it is possible to run a lot of sets at 2 a day. I wonder if it would help to relax the rules at WP:DYKROTATE and try to run at least an extra set a week to manage the backlog? Or if anyone has a better idea? TSventon (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'll try and keep on top of the queues, but this weekend will be my city's premiere drag show, so I'll also be spending time developing the pictures (Miz Cracker, Miss Fiercalicious, and Dulce are the headliners... aside from Dulce, potentially, no DYK involvement there). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

SOHAs

I'm a little confused: we have SOHAs in Queue 1 (International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples), Prep 6 (Indonesia, partially promoted), Prep 7 (Korean, fully promoted), and Prep 2 (International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples again). I get that Prep 6 and Prep 7 will have to bounce a bit due to the recent switch to 2x a day, but do we have a second set of indigenous peoples hooks? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Er, no. What happened is I confused Indonesian and Indigenous. Indonesia should be in prep 2.--Launchballer 22:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

alright. I will move the items from 6 to 2 if that hasn't been done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

There was a date request by nominator Miminity for Kanmon Kaikyo Fireworks Festival, currently in Queue 2, to run on August 13, to coincide with the festival. It was in the proper place to appear in Japan at 9 am on the 13th. With the switch to twice per day, its runtime has been displaced. The ideal spot would be Prep 2, to start at its originally scheduled time, but that Prep is now designated as "INDONESIA SET". Will there be room in that set for this Japan hook? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Switches to 2-a-day last three days and we just started day two, so assuming we go back on 9 August and stay back it should be in prep 5.--Launchballer 01:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

We should try and stretch beyond three days if we can. TarnishedPath^talk 01:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, but I prefer to move back again when we're sure.--Launchballer 01:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I moved this to prep 5 and will move back again if needed.--Launchballer 11:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 4 (10 August 2026)

Russell Alton McNutt (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Iseult, Dclemens1971, and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Hook fact says "... that the development of Washington, D.C., suburb of Reston was led in part by an alleged Soviet spy?" The fact that Reston is a suburb of Washington is not mentioned in the bold article, nor is it cited. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Amended. To be clear, it’s definitely already cited. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, per the Simon obituary already in the article:

• …founded Reston, Va., in the early 1960s as America’s first planned alternative to the postwar suburban sprawl of commuter towns…
• …in Fairfax County, 20 miles west of Washington.
• Reston did not quite become the community Mr. Simon had envisioned, but it grew into a vibrant suburb of Washington…

In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Yep, no worries. This item is in queue already. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Umais Bin Sajjad, and Rhain: Phrasing is ambiguous. "... was the first downloadable content nominated for Game of the Year at the Game Awards 2024?" could mean it was the first one nominated for Game of the Year, period (as intended), or the first one nominated in 2024. Personally, I'd just nix everything after "at the".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, I read it to mean that it was the first downloadable content (DLC) ever nominated for Game of the Year and that it occured for the 2024 awards. You could probably trim off "at the Game Awards 2024" which would make it clearer. TarnishedPath^talk 01:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point. As long as Game of the Year is linked, I think it would be fine to trim off the last five words. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 01:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Good catch Chris. Dropping those extra few would make the hook cleaner. Thanks! Umais🗣 17:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Lunar GNSS Receiver Experiment (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, AxelCruise, Newman ash2112, and Шахматист2025: Source is the final report of the researchers, and thus primary. For safety's sake, do we have a secondary source, perhaps one that independently evaluated the findings? If not, it's not a deal breaker, but it would be good to have confirmation. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, news is confirmed by ESA and European Commission:

https://www.euspa.europa.eu/newsroom-events/news/gnss-works-moon

https://www.esa.int/Applications/Satellite_navigation/Galileo_goes_to_the_Moon

And by this magazine: https://www.gpsworld.com/lugre-receiver-captures-gnss-signals-in-lunar-orbit/

There is also a quite deep independent radio amateur data analysis: https://destevez.net/2025/12/first-analysis-of-the-lunar-gnss-receiver-experiment-data/

All these sources have been added to the article page.

There is also this preprint: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/410698809_The_Ionosphere_as_Earth%27s_Womb_-_A_TQTU-NASA_Integrated_Perspective_on_Planetary_Plasma_Regulation_Thermodynamic_Self-Organization_and_Cosmic_Nurture Newman ash2112 (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you. The item is now queued. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Jorge Odón (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Cl3phact0, and Cbl62: I'm pulling this one. The efficacy of the device and its workings are definitely "Attributes of a treatment or drug", and thus fall under WP:BMI. Solid medical sourcing is thus required; in particular, the statement "The inflated sleeve is used to help gently pull the baby's head through the birth canal, facilitating delivery while reducing trauma and the risk of injury to both mother and child." should not be cited to the company's website. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Thank you, I wasn't familiar with WP:BMI and will read it in detail now. At first glance, my recollection is that a number of our sources support the claims about how the device works, as well as confirming results of trials of its efficacity (see claims re: WHO testing, Kitemark certification, etc. in the final paragraph of the article). Please let me go back and review this in detail and try to correct any error(s). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I've added the BBC article that describes the UK testing. The Policlinico university article also goes into quite some detail, but unfortunately it's not in English. We also have some more technical sources (e.g., scientific papers which are listed in Refideas on the article Talk page). Is this overkill? Not sure how much more is needed. Please advise.

I also note that the "www.odondevice.org" reference isn't the best of the best (it's a web archive from 2016). Should we just remove this one entirely, of leave it in place for the record? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'll be honest; WP:MEDRS daunts me. That being said, as I understand the guideline, the preference is for review articles (assuming they exist) and textbooks, with sources such as popular media lower down on the list and strongly dependent on the history of the publication's coverage of medical topics (WP:MEDPOP). For non-extraordinary claims, the BBC probably meets MEDPOP (with the caveat that "A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure.").

Looking through the suggested sources on the talk page, "New challenges in operative vaginal delivery: the Odon device, A systematic review" would definitely meet MEDRS guidelines, as a review article. "The OdonAssist inflatable device for assisted vaginal birth—the ASSIST II study (United Kingdom)" is a primary source by MEDRS standards, which makes it less desirable as a reference but still potentially useful. The others are MEDPOP and would not work for BMI claims on their own.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

MEDRS is indeed daunting (I come at this from an interest in design, invention, and architecture—amongst other things). I'll think twice before making contributions that require re-reading that one (or BMI)!

That said, I've added the New challenges article from ScienceDirect and moved the old company website that you initially flagged off the page and back to Refideas on Talk (for now; we can toss it later if it serves no useful purpose). I left the BBC ref in place. We could also add the ASSIST II article, or possibly use this in External links, if needs be. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• As I understand MEDRS, the entire paragraph should ideally be sourced to the medical journals, assuming the information is there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Added previously omitted url; re-referenced additional sentences in paragraph. Is that what you meant? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, I'm seeing that the MEDRS are paired up with plain-language sources, so that should be good. Will reinstate the tick. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Any French speakers in the house?

Any native / near-native French speakers around at DYK? Asking for a friend. To weigh in on the issue of Francophone whistling which is equivalent to Anglophone booing in the wording of this DYK hook. cc: @JTtheOG Cielquiparle (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

"Heckled" might be a good alternative. "Taunted" works too, but heckled probably gets the nuance better. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Korean set on August 15

I was taking a look at the Korea set on August 15, and I noticed that several of the hooks mention Korea by name. Per prior discussions (for example the Philippines set), and per discussions about the William and Mary College set back in February, there was a loose consensus to limit mentioning by name the topic of special sets to avoid saturation. Would it still be possible to modify the hooks to limit the number of mentions of "Korea" to the most realistic minimum? Unlike the Philippines set, most of the hooks do seem to require mentioning "Korea", so I'm not sure if this would be feasible, but it might be worth keeping in mind. Courtesy ping to KimYubin as the set's proposer and primary contributor, as well as other set contributors: @Grapesurgeon, BeanieFan11, Chipmunkdavis, Anyu00, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, Queen of Hearts, and Orangesclub:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point. I think some of the hooks can be changed as below

• ... that Kim Ryong-lin has been considered one of the best actors of his country?
• ... that the Goryeo court moved to Ganghwasanseong Fortress to escape the Mongols?
• ... that a festival established in 2002 has its roots in a 1592 war?

KimYubin (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I see the hook I proposed has been changed from "... that coal miner Kim Ryong-lin went on to be considered one of his country's greatest actors?" to "... that Kim Ryong-lin has been considered one of the greatest North Korean actors?" with a proposed modification to "... that Kim Ryong-lin has been considered one of the actors of his country?" I'm curious why it was changed? I would think a coal miner becoming one of the greatest actors is more interesting than just the fact that someone was one of the greatest actors, no? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that it was one of the hooks where "Korea" or "North Korea" could stay, the question was which other hooks need to be revised, or if it is even practical to limit mentions the way it happened with the other sets. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with BeanieFan that the coal miner part is interesting & should be included in the hook. KimYubin (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

that a coal miner became one of his country's greatest actors? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This looks good. KimYubin (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree, adding coal miner is an improvement. Other two hook changes to remove Korea also work fine. CMD (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's on me. I was going to do the double hook that was proposed, but then I realized that Beanie never gave QPQs and the reviewer didn't sign off on the second article. Thanks for reinserting ALT0. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Would it be okay to swap in the revised hooks now? Doing so would reduce the number of hooks that mention "Korea" to four out of nine (five if you count Goryeo, but it's different enough from Korea that it could be treated as separate), but that still seems too many. The ideal might be around 2-3 depending on how the remaining Korea-mentioning hooks can be reworded. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think that makes sense, yeah. On a related note, as I prepped this set, I'm not able to queue it, so someone else will have to handle that part. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If that set were to be queued in the next 10 hours, it would need to go back three because this is day six of two-a-day. The next sets that need queuing are preps 3 and 4 (it was my understanding that we were giving tomorrow's SOHA set 24 hours).--Launchballer 14:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I've swapped in the revised Goryeo hook. With that, there are now only three hooks in the set that explicitly say "Korea"; I'm not sure if we should reduce it further, or three should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, tomorrow's set should definitely get a full 24 hours. I'll be at a Pride event, so someone else will have to flip the switch after midnight UTC. I can flip the switch back after the SOHA runs. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7 queue checks

If an admin resumes a new run of 2/day hooks, this will need to be bumped back to a later prep, but I've gone ahead and queued it to get the next prep ready to queue. I'd appreciate it if someone could check Elijah Jang-Whan Kim, since I wrote that hook. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Jinju Namgang Yudeung Festival. @Anyu00, KimYubin, Miminity, and Crisco 1492: I removed the bulleted section, which was a fairly clear example of WP:TRANSVIO from this source based on machine translation. As a non-Korean-speaker this is harder for me to identify; I'd appreciate it if a Korean speaker could do a check for any additional close paraphrasing or copyvio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I reviewed the article & don't think there are copyvio problems. I re-added the events section & paraphrased the source. KimYubin (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• A Kim Jong-Il Production. @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, Queen of Hearts, Rlendog, and Crisco 1492: I'm not seeing where the source describes the timing of the release as a "coincidence"; the closest I see is "serendipity", but there can be serendipity with deliberately timed releases as well. Is this aspect of the claim supported in a different source? If not, I'd suggest removing the word as the reviewer suggested. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I am not opposed to removing the word "coincidence". ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Y Done in the interest of time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Elijah when I'm less tired.--Launchballer 14:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Elijah looks good, only thing I see is that from my reading the source attributes the donation as coming from the Anglican Church of Korea generally rather than just the Diocese of Seoul (although he attended the ceremony in his capacity as bishop). Zzz plant (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6 (currently scheduled for August 15, 2026)

Blue Journey (nom)

• ... that the VTuber music group Blue Journey debuted its first standalone single at the end of its first concert?

@1brianm7, Vanderwaalforces, and Beta Beta Beta: I'm not sure how the hook as currently written meets DYKINT. Is it inherently unusual for singles or songs to be debuted at a concert? Maybe something else can be proposed here? At the moment, I'm also not sure if the hook appeals to non-VTuber fans either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts on ALT0 and ALT1? Also, do you think the original ALT2 is verifiable (e.g., if there is only one concert included in the article and only one standalone single, is it valid to say only concert and only standalone single). I can look over the article for more hooks in a few hours (I am currently busy trying to figure out how to get AWB to work). I added "VTuber music group" because I thought it would increase interest, I don't think its the hooks only claim to interest. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about ALT1, but ALT0 doesn't seem all that interesting either since it seems to require familiarity with its members or the community as a whole. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

"VTuber music group" could be removed from ALT0 (or any of them) to make it punchier. My thinking on ALT0 is that it is interesting that sad songs were viewed as deliberate attempt to appeal to a wider demographic. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe rephrasing ALT0 to "that Blue Journey's melancholic songs may be an attempt at mass-market appeal?", as that avoids requiring prior knowledge. I'm a little unfamiliar with DYKs exact position on weasel words beyond it being looser than in mainspace, and present tense feels a bit odd but I don't know what could be done. 1brianm7 (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I think the essence of ALT0 has the possibility of being more interesting than ALT1 or ALT2, but the phrasing might need a bit more work. perhaps ALT0b: "... that Blue Journey's melancholic songs may have been an attempt to make its members more relatable?" or ALT0C: "... that Blue Journey's melancholic songs may have been an attempt to gain a wider audience and make its members more relatable?" From this, I think readers will wonder why its members weren't relatable, and why melancholy would be the solution to this (questions which the article expands on!), and for ALT0c it makes them wonder why melancholy would be the route to wider appeal, as most works that aim for wide commercial appeal stay on the lighter side. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This particular angle doesn't seem to be working out. Melancholic songs are popular all the time and them gaining popularity isn't on its own unusual. Plenty of people also relate to songs about heartbreaks or other sad experiences, so it's far from unique to this group. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Nomination template question

I had a question/thought for the coding proficient editors (maybe Theleekycauldron?). Would it be possible to adjust the "include image" to "include image(s)" and add coding similar to that for the "add alt hook" function? My most recent nomination I added multiple hooks, but the images that I felt were most representative for differed. Currently I had to mock up the second image suggestion in the comments box, but an alt image function in the template mechanics would simplify that for anyone with multiple media. Also, we should change "image" to "media" as we have featured videos and audio in the top slot on occasion. Thanks! --Kevmin § 15:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

2x a Day

I've proactively switched DYKBot back to 12 hour sets, given previous discussion. Do people want to try and continue the run of 2x sets, or is it better to go back to 1-a-day? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

We should try and stay at 12 hour sets for as long as we can manage it. That said, you've been doing a lot of the heavy lifting Chris and I don't want to see you get burnt out. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• I recharged a bit this weekend, which was nice. I think we can do another couple days, at least. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'll try and promote the Indonesian set hooks after my children are in bed later tonight, if no one beats me to it. TarnishedPath^talk 00:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good. If I'm reading the template right, Prep 6 will be the Korea SOHA. That should be a full day, then Prep 7, then Prep 1 for the Indonesian SOHA. Given that it's only a one-day interval, I think even if we are able to hold the course until the 15th we should have the 16th as a one-set day. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Assuming we carry on until the 15th, the first set to hit the main page that day should be prep 5. Then it's two sets, then prep 1. Preps 5 and 6 need switching.--Launchballer 01:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hang on, the last queue is queue 7 and the first prep is prep 2.--Launchballer 02:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, I missed updating a template when I pulled the Korea items out of queue. Will be working on this now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 1 (13 August 2026)

Murder of Dandara dos Santos (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Questionadora ávida, and Dudzcar: Source refers to a plan, which is long past. Personally, I'd trim the year range, but if we're going to stick with it we need proof the sculpture left New York in 2020 (that was... not a good year for inter-state travel, and even in better situations plans change). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It left in August 2020: https://www.nycgovparks.org/art/art826; Complementary: https://www.allarts.org/2019/11/dandara-tribeca-art-installation-commemorating-trans-lives/; https://abc11.com/videoClip/5707016/; https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/editorial/image-editorial/%27dream-machine-dandara%27-sculpture-by-brazilian-artist-10469959e?dd_referrer=; https://www.taglialatellagalleries.com/news-archive/timeout-rubem-robierb-sculptures-at-randalls-island (it was in an island as of 2021) Dudzcar (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• In that case, the article should be updated. As written, it still uses sources from before the item left New York. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Anglican Journal (nom)

I was reviewer here and thus another pair of eyes is needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Not seeing any issues here.--Launchballer 02:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

As there are two consecutive hooks mentioning 2026 and there was a request for Kanmon Kaikyo Fireworks Festival (currently in queue 5) to run on 13 August, I'm probably going to swap this with that.--Launchballer 02:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Sounds good! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7

Ewuakpe (nom)

@Vanderwaalforces, Vacant0, and Crisco 1492: I can't find all of the hook in the article, where is it? Also, Egharevba and Blackmun - the two sources in the nomination - are offline and require registration respectively, which means I'd need quotes per WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE.--Launchballer 01:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• As I'm reading it, the passage "Egharevba states that Ewuakpe consulted an oracle after nearly abandoning hope of recovering his authority. ... Iden encouraged Ewuakpe to obey the oracle and offered herself as the sacrifice. She was reportedly buried alive near the Oba's market. ... On the following morning, Esogban reportedly saw the scattered calabashes and head-load pads and concluded that the remaining rebels had submitted.[20] He then gave Ewuakpe forty enslaved people of both sexes, coral beads and other valuables, and swore allegiance." supports the entire hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

So it is. I still need quotes from the source.--Launchballer 01:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Aye. I'm no help there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. Launchballer I'm just going to provide the quote for you to help yourself, and I'll say no other thing, because, hmm, just hmm.

Blackmun 2013, p. 393: Benin’s storytelling traditions record that Oba Ewuakpe was deposed and abandoned by the Edo people. The deserted oba lost his crown, his palace, and his kingdom. When he learned that Iden, his beloved wife and only loyal friend, was dead, he sat alone and quietly played the akpata bow harp, mourning in despair. The Edo population heard his heartfelt music and relented, bringing him food and gifts as proof of renewed loyalty. They knew that Queen Iden had committed suicide, having learned from a clairvoyant that only a human sacrifice could restore Ewuakpe’s kingship.

Egharevba 1968, p. 37–38: He was crowned Qba under the title of Ewuakpe but the people rebelled against him immediately. They would not attend meetings in his palace, neither would they provide him with food nor supply labour for the upkeep of the royal buildings. He remained in this condition with his wife Iden for a considerable time, and when he could not bear to continue to live in this state he went to Ikoka, his mother’s town. Here, instead of being received with joy he was unkindly treated and not even allowed to reside in the town until he took part in the road work and the digging of wells. This caused him to curse the people, and return to Benin City. ... He had almost given up hope when he was advised by the oracle to offer a human sacrifice to the gods, and to scatter about the tower of the palace some newly emptied calabashes of palm oil, and pads for carrying loads on the head. His wife urged him to act according to this advice and offered to be the sacrifice, and was buried alive near the Oba’s market. Iden warned her husband that he must let no dirt remain on her grave, and anyone treading on it must be killed on the spot. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

And if you're interested in the full picture or still in doubt, Egharevba is not subscription-only, Read at the Internet Archive. And ah, Blackmun 2013 is available via the Wikipedia Library too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 2 (14 August 2026)

The Building Worker (nom)

@Zzz plant, APK, and GreenLipstickLesbian: The source says that it was used for a vigil on one specific occasion. Is there a reference that states that it is used regularly? Also, I'd recommend specifying when the "two workers a week" figure was measured; given the rapidly changing workplace environment, almost 20-year-old data should not be assumed to automatically reflect the current situation. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• As there was no reply, I've bumped this back and added an "under discussion" tag. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The UniteLive source talks about it being annual: "Construction workers, activists and campaigners gathered at the Building Worker statue on Tower Hill yesterday (28 April) for Unites annual International Workers Memorial Day (IWMD) commemoration." and Trevor reminded the crowd about why they gather every year" Zzz plant (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• That's a step forward, but it doesn't specifically say that the commemoration is always at the statue. It could be that the commemorations have different venues every year. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: - When the statue was dedicated in 2006, this source says "It is hoped wreaths will be placed by the statue each year on 28 April which is Workers' Memorial Day." This source mentions the gathering at the statue in 2010, this one in 2014, and this one in 2026. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Alrighty. Part of me wants to hedge and remove "each year" as that isn't demonstrated, but sources definitely support it being a regular practice. Will remove the tag — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Saw: Genesis (nom)

Just noting the previous second pair of eyes, so this is okay for me to handle if need be. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Third series euro redesign (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Chorchapu, and Moondragon21: Would it be hookier if we specified that the two will not mix? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That could work, yes. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 09:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few days ago, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 15. We have a total of 497 nominations, of which 313 have been approved, a gap of 184 nominations that has increased in size by 30 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Fate/Extella Link
• July 1: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Toluca FC records and statistics
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Vintilă Weiss
• 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/History of Mediacorp
• July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Quetena
• 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
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Kerstin Gurtner
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Liew Mun Leong

Other nominations

• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Tendai Rinomhota
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Lola Flanery
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Second Intermediate Period of Egypt
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup final
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Bolu Ogunyemi
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Gold Crown from Cheonmachong Tomb
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Carrier telephony
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Cents-Neudorf-Weimershof bridge and elevator
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/John Huston filmography
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Atanasie Popovici
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Philoxenos Yuhanon Dolabani
• July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/León Federico Aneiros
• July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph H. Rothenberg
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Korean shamanism

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) 03:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Codify instructions to prioritize older nominations?

I see that WP:DYKPBR does not include any mention of prioritizing older hooks while maintaining variety. Previously, we had notes like "In general, the oldest listed suggestions are selected for the prep areas first, to ensure that they don't go stale before they are chosen." in our guidelines. I was wondering if we should restore similar verbiage to the current guidelines, given that the preference for older nominations is not codified. This should provide a firmer indicator of community consensus when promoters (newer or older) bring items to the preps within days of nomination (as has happened numerous times in the past two weeks).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if this should be related or not, but DYKN is currently suffering from severe PEIS issues, so anything that would help cut that down would help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that adding your suggestion to the guidance makes sense. The guidelines were rejigged in mid 2023 and not promoting the oldest hooks may have been less of a problem when there was a pipeline of about thirty days rather than about sixty days.

DYKN exceeding PEIS is periodically dealt with by WP:DYKUBM, but promoting older hooks helps as well. Of course DYKNA constantly exceeds PEIS. TSventon (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

We probably should be more aggressive in allowing UBM, but it usually just moves the issue to DYKNA, and even when UBM happens it takes time for it to clear up stuff since that still means at least one new review per two reviews. I wonder if what will actually help DYKN, and possibly DYKNA, is the ongoing discussion on a hard timeout (for example, timing out reviewed but unapproved nominations after a period of time). Given how DYKN stalling is a common problem at DYK, it might meaningfully reduce our backlog. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This certainly makes very good sense—especially if (in theory) we're going to let approved, compliant, and otherwise perfectly good and worthy hooks timeout. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I think WP:DYKPBR and WP:DYKPBI need to be consolidated so that everything a new prep builder needs to know is in one place, and plan to do that in the near future. In the meantime, I think some language indicating that it's a best practice to promote from eligible older nominations, while noting that prep builders have flexibility to draw from newer hooks as needed based on building varied sets or other policy considerations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure consolidating makes sense, as one is a high-level overview while the other is a more hand-on guide. But yeah, agree that highlighting the flexibility is necessary. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  (If you only read the instructions, you wouldn't be apprised of all that's expected.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I can see the merit in moving WP:DYKPBR to the top of WP:DYKPBI, in-between the intro and the instructions. TarnishedPath^talk 07:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I would generally be happy to see promoters choosing the most interesting hooks instead of the oldest ones. If nobody cares enough about a hook to let it time out, so be it. —Kusma (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no world where promotors read over all (300 odd) approved hooks and then methodically recall which hook they think is the most interesting. They're picking a direction and scrolling, promoting sets that have no outstanding issues, they find interesting, and that fit WP:DYKVAR. New hooks are coming in every day, often at a greater speed than we can promote them, meaning that if you start from the bottom even the most interesting hooks are liable to be left behind to dumb chance. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There are a few weeks of slack built into the system to make overlooking an amazing hook a bit less common, but yes, it is a bit of a random process. My secret plan is to get rid of DYKINT, which is subjective and causes lots of unproductive and lengthy discussion and just let prep promoters plus blind luck decide what gets to see the light of the Main Page and what is discarded. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Not so secret now! I'd support that plan. (One could even say that INT is beyond subjective, it's destructive, in that it wastes time and resources.) Also, if we just suggest that reviewers not bother with the duds in the first place, then those noms would time out. We could even automate that process (e.g., build a tool simply flushes unreviewed noms after their pull-by date—a bit like rotating and re-stocking the perishables in a food shop). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is my suggestion. In fact, pre-subpage DYK worked a lot like that, with noms timed out after one week if they had not been picked for the Main Page. Of course a DYK nomination was a lot less effort back then. But people did not feel they had a right to see their article on the Main Page; I think that was more healthy in terms of expectations. —Kusma (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

DYKINT has its flaws, but I'm not sure if it's worth throwing the baby out of the bathwater, since overcorrecting could lead us to running actual duds. Unless we are willing to accept the cost of running duds or even readership complaints. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• While my own views on DYKINT are on record, I think that's a conversation for another place. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I have on occasion scrolled through everything, that is transcluded, looking for an appropriately interesting image hook which also meets WP:DYKVAR and then started going through untranscluded nominations as I hadn't found anything yet. While in general I agree we should go with oldest first, we also need some flexibility to mix things up. TarnishedPath^talk 09:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• That's one reason the old wording used "in general". If there is a general consensus for codifying, we can workshop phrasing to make explicit the discretion allowed to promoters. I think generally, though, prep builders are expected to not be going to the newest nominations first. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have no issue with adding wording that states that in general prep builders should be using newer nominations where possible. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Colorado (video game)

I would like to request a second opinion on this nomination, particularly with regards to the hooks and their accuracy, and whether or not the hook fact holds up given it is primarily sourced to a single source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)