Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination list

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

Indonesia set for August 17?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep 4 - Wingdings for April 1?

Prep 4 includes the hook -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to proceed?

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep 7 (4 August)

2007 Messi–Yamal photo shoot (nom)

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

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

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

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

City status in Ukraine (nom)

@Dclemens1971: hello; regarding the omission of Pripyat, I personally believe it should be mentioned in the hook. After all, it is the workers' settlement of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and the one city that is entirely abandoned. In contrast, Chernobyl is not located right next to the plant and, as a result, is only partially abandoned. I understand that the latter city is more famous because the power plant carries its name, but IMO the fact that a completely abandoned settlement that was also affected by the disaster the most has not lost its city status is more interesting. I am aware that the existence of Pripyat is not common knowledge, which is why a wikilink could be useful and also why I mention it alongside Chernobyl. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 15:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Shwabb1 OK, I'll add it back in, but I think it detracts from the effectiveness of the hook. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

avicii

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

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

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

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

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

Statue of Austin Blair (nom)

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

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

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

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

Pirngadi (nom)

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

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

Confessions II (film) (nom)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeanna Giese (nom)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep 4 (1 August 2026)

John A. Manke (nom)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jessy Randall (nom)

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

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

Overture in G minor (Ives) (nom)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK didn't update?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queue 5 (2 August 2026)

Edward Victor Appleton (nom)

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

Egg Clearinghouse (nom)

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

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

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

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

DYK checklist template inconsistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is anyone looking for something to do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMAAAAAAAAAZZZZZing what a relief!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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. 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)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

More than one month old

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

Other nominations

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

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

U.S. Route 101 in California (nom)

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

Replied. It seems that there's a glitch that's causing the GA promotion date to show as January 1, 2000 2001 rather than the actual date of July 4, 2026. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Want to check something

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

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

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

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

Cool. Like I said, the NIB is a new thing in Japan right now. I'll try to 5x as much as I can. Ominae (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Ahenzae

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

@Vanderwaalforces Just go ahead and submit the nom and request the extension there, it's within the reviewer's discretion (and customary) to grant it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 Thank you so much! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 7 (4 August)

@DYK admins: (and non-admin queue movers): I can't do Prep 6 since I promoted or am otherwise involved with most of them, but I did all the queue checks and signed off on Prep 7, so those can be moved in after Prep 6. I won't be around much for the next few days so thought I'd get these checks done. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

To summarize very briefly, promote Prep 6 and Prep 7. Beta Beta Beta - talk 02:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: I've moved 6 to queue and am currently reviewing it; feel free to move 7! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

No Queue Ready

Prep 6 needs to be moved to Queue 6 as there is no queue ready for August 3. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

All queues are empty

@DYK admins: hi, DYK queue status is red, please can somebody promote a prep or two within the next 11 hours. (i.e what NewAccount7295 just said, but with a ping.) TSventon (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• I am currently out of town without access to a desktop. If there is still no queue when I get back later tonight my time, I will do an expedited review and promotion. (I would prefer not having to do so, of course) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • We are at 3 queues. Thank you TechnoSquirrel69, Dclemens1971, and Darth Stabro — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@DYK admins: With August 3 approaching another prep should be promoted as well. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Hi NewAccount7295, it is already August 3 UTC, which is when the update happened. We are queued until August 5, meaning August 6 will be the next date that needs to be queued. While it is ideal to have something queued soon, it is not yet an emergency. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6 (August 10)

Aimee La Joie (nom)

• ... that actress Aimee La Joie (pictured) portrayed various people on a film set in the video The Film Crew?

@Dclemens1971, Filmforme, and DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Bumped this back a week. I'm struggling to see the interestingness angle here, as well as with how this complies with DYKFICTION. ("Creative works are bounded only by human imagination, making possible all manner of hooks that would be interesting if they were real ...") —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting that this leaves Queue 6 imageless. Perhaps it would be best to promote an existing image hook in the prep area to Queue 6 so the queue doesn't run without an image. This has been done, thank you! Beta Beta Beta - talk 04:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I politely disagree with both the concerns - the hook does not talk about the story/plot, it talks about who the actress portrayed, and it is quite unusual for someone to portray all characters in one video, especially one that is super popular DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Point taken on the fictional aspect! And I could see an interesting hook about someone portraying all of the characters in a work (though I feel that's pretty common for social media videos). All the hook states, though, is that she played "various people on a film set", which does not contain that nugget of interestingness. I'm also confused by § Filmography stating that a bunch of actors featured in this video — doesn't that mean La Joie did not play every role? —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I just reread and I think that she plays all of the crew members but not every single character - @Filmforme: could you please clarify this and maybe adapt the hook per TechnoSquirrel69's comments? :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 and @DaniloDaysOfOurLives. These sources say or imply entire film crew 1 2 (spanish). After the first video went viral, there was a series of shorts that followed, one that included the other actors listed in the filmography. I will remove them since the initial video here makes no mention of them with WP:RS.

As for the updated hook, I would suggest something like

• ... that actress Aimee La Joie (pictured) portrayed an entire film crew in the video The Film Crew?
• ... that actress Aimee La Joie (pictured) did a one woman depiction of an entire film crew in the video The Film Crew?

Filmforme (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 FWIW I agree with Danilo above, but it looks like alts are on their way. The otter hook was a SOHA request; can you return it to prep 4 and sub in another image hook? Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that I was the GA reviewer of that article so I cannot give it a formal approval/review (see WP:DYKRR). But anyway, I guess those updated hooks are actually more interesting. The original hook makes me think that she portrayed a random number of people that is at least two, but not all. JuniperChill (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ALTs and for adjusting the article, Filmforme! I've moved the first hook into prep. Normally, I would avoid the repetition of the phrase film crew, but in this case I think it makes it hookier, weirdly. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69, the hook you've moved into the image slot of Queue 6 has a hidden comment which I had placed there stating that I had promoted it into the 8th Aug prep for Singapore national day (the day is actually 9th Aug, but that set is taken up by the indigenous person's day set and the 8th of Aug set has overlap with when it will be 9th of Aug in Singapore). Are we able to get it moved back to the 8th of Aug set please. Pinging @Chipmunkdavis and @Dclemens1971 as involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 13:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Otters are back in the queue for August 8. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Cheers. Ps, Otters rock! TarnishedPath^talk 01:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all for the effort on the SOHA, and the otter appreciation. CMD (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Additional Preparations Area(s)

Should one or more additional preparation areas be added to the DYK queue?

• A: Yes
• B: No

And if so, how many?

Prior Discussion:

• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 215#I created Prep 8

NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

No. The bottleneck for DYK is in queueing, not prepping, and adding more areas doesn't make more reviewers.~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

B, I see no need in another prep set. Beta Beta Beta - talk 18:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Why is this a WP:RFC matter? Surely it's best discussed by the DYK regulars, who are, after all, familiar with terms like "prep" and "queue", which are otherwise obscure to those who have never submitted a DYK nom. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• B, but also agree with Redrose64 that this could be handled with a DYK discussion rather than a full RFC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• B: If both the preps and the queues were regularly full, this might be a worthwhile suggestion. However, that is not the case. As Darth Stabro correctly states, the bottle neck is generally in queueing, not prepping and this proposal would make zero difference to that. TarnishedPath^talk 01:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Queue 1 (August 4)

Battle of Tricamarum (nom)

@A.Cython and Vanderwaalforces: I'm not seeing the hook cited in the article. I see the hook in the lead and a little bit of it in the body, but it's not cited at the end of the sentence in which it appears in the body, as is required per WP:DYKCITE. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I am a bit confused why this is not clear. I include the relevant information, so please pin point where is the issue.

• hook: that Huns serving in the Byzantine army were tempted to change sides at the Battle of Tricamarum because they feared they would not be allowed to return to their homeland and keep their booty?
• article's main body text: Gelimer sent agents to undermine the loyalty of the Carthaginian inhabitants and attempted to have the Byzantine Hun mercenaries—that had played a key role in the success at Ad Decimum—betray Belisarius, achieving some success. The Huns feared that if the Byzantines won, they would remain in Libya instead of returning to their native lands and would not also keep their booty.The Hunnic auxiliaries remained neutral, intending to support whichever side emerged victorious.
• Syvänne p. 97 (citation #9) The Vandals hoped that they would be able to capture the city through treason on the part of the Carthagians or with the help of Roman soldiers who were followers of Arius (meaning the Germanic foederati). They also dispatched envoys to the leaders of the Huns with great promises if they would desert to their side. The Huns indeed were ready to betray the Romans, which proves that the Vandals must have had some prior knowledge of this from spies located inside the city. According to Procopius, the Huns were not happy that they had been transferred to North Africa contrary to the sworn oath given by the strategos Peter (Petros). So the Huns promised to betray the Romans. ... Now since Belisarius was also aware of the planned treason of the Huns, he attempted to win them over with gifts and banquets and with flattering. With these measures he was ultimately able to learn what the Huns had promised to Gelimer and what Gelimer had promised to the Huns. He also learned what were the grievances that the Huns held against the Romans. They feared that if the Romans won they would not send them back to their native lands but would keep them in Libya. They also feared that the Romans would take the booty away from them. In answer Belisarius promised that he would send them back to their homes with their booty if they would defeat the Vandals decisively. The Huns took oaths and promised to fight loyally, but in truth they just decided to stay outside the fight and wait for the outcome. (emphasis added) A.Cython(talk) 18:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Darth Stabro: A.Cython(talk) 18:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython: WP:DYKCITE states The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear. The gist being spread across multiple sentences and then being distilled in the hook makes fulfilling that a bit more difficult. Ultimately it's more about expediting reviewing more than anything else, but things have been brought to WP:ERRORS for less. Not a huge deal. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Darth StabrovThank you I missed this, I added citation to the sentence . I hope this resolves the issue. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 18:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 1 (August 11)

Cambridge South railway station

@JuniperChill @MaranoFan I went ahead and promoted ALT0 to Prep 1, but what about (with the same source) replacing it with ALT2 ... that the newly-opened Cambridge South railway station (pictured) was designed to blend in to a nearby nature reserve? NewAccount7295 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295 I haven't thought about that. It seems more interesting than the other two I initially proposed so I can go with ALT2 (or should I say ALT0b seeing as its a little more info than ALT0). (Also, I expected the header to link to the article, not the DYK nomination) JuniperChill (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

We'll go ahead with that hook then. It is much more interesting and representative of the source. NewAccount7295 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Image

@NewAccount7295: In your prep building, I noticed you changed the image hook without much explanation, I will bring up two concerns:

• The new image hook may divert traffic to Przewalski's horse instead of the nominated article; I feel this is sufficient reasoning to change the image hook back to Ice cream stand which I see no glaring issue of the previous image hook.
• I would prefer an underlying reason on why the image hook was changed in the first place.

This does not imply that there are any issues with the articles or hooks themselves; simply that one would work better if it wasn't an image hook. Cheers, Beta Beta Beta - talk 21:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Beta Beta Beta I thought Przewalski's horse was a nicer image. We could delink the two species mentioned to prevent diverting traffic from the list. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The image looks nice, yes, but the image for Ice cream stand complements the hook by, showing a glass-fronted ice cream stand with angled walls, quite literally. Delinking the two articles in the hook wouldn't be necessary if it were to not have an image for one of the non-bolded links; my preference is to only delink the two articles if it stays as the image hook. Beta Beta Beta - talk 22:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Why was this nomination promoted 17 minutes after it was approved, especially as the article creator has said they are not yet done writing the article. I agree that the image of Przewalski's horse is likely to divert views. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Przewalski's horse shouldn't have even been in the hook in the first place per WP:DYKTRIM. I've moved Ice cream stand back in. Frankly, the fact that prep 1 is currently the bottom prep means that neither of them should be in there.--Launchballer 22:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)