Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Template editor request

[edit]

Hi all,
Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Whole hog barbecue, I'm making a request for the template editor permission as per established practice for DYK where requests are brought before this page for consensus. I'm requesting this perm for the purposes of being able to make administrative changes to queues, due to any reasons raised on this talk page or any that I identify myself.
I've made about 450 promotions to date, and while I've had issues occasionally, I think I've demonstrated that I have a clue and that I know how to not fuck things up beyond repair. TarnishedPathtalk 13:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Has clue.--Launchballer 13:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was actually thinking you should apply given the amount of times you had to ask TEs to fix something when you could've done it yourself. HurricaneZetaC 14:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Highly experienced promoter; TP having this permission will be a net positive for the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I literally thought you already have the TE right (and that currently everyone that commented has this, myself included) JuniperChill (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've tabulated a spreadsheet of all of the hooks that were modified because of significant errors while on the Main Page this year; you show up 3 times as promoter (and 2 times as hook author). You've promoted 134 hooks this year so far, for an error rate of 2.2% in promotion, which is lower than what I calculate to be our overall error rate of 34⁄1103=3.1%; however, if we count all the hooks you've nominated, it'd be 4⁄137, for an error rate of 2.9%. (We could also count the fifth one that you modified after promotion, but then I'd have to find every hook you similarly edited this year, and i truly don't wanna.) Nothing too concerning here, either, but I do want to ask you about all five to hear your thoughts on each – some were definitely not the biggest whiffs, so don't feel pressured to mea culpa on any or all :) [Did you know ...]
  • (2026-02-11) ... that future Slavic-language professor Marc L. Greenberg learned Slovene after his partner sent him a bilingual dictionary and started writing letters to him only in Slovene?
    You replaced "fiancée" with "partner" after promoting this hook because the article didn't state that they were engaged at the time. It was edited on the MP to reflect that, per the source, they were engaged. (No ERRORS discussion here)
  • (2026-03-10) ... that Jordan Shanks's house was firebombed after he published a YouTube video about the Alameddine crime family?
    You nominated this article. It was edited on the MP because of possible safety concerns that come with naming the crime family on the Main Page. (No ERRORS discussion here)
  • (2026-03-15) ... that the novelist Rosa Praed believed that she and her medium were the reincarnations of an ancient Roman slave girl and slave mistress?
    You promoted this hook. It was edited twice on the MP: once because Praed believed she was the mistress, not the girl, and once because "mistress" could be misconstrued to mean "concubine" rather than the intended sense, the feminine form of "master". (ERRORS)
  • (2026-03-26) ... that Geoff Epstein said that the difference between him and Jeffrey Epstein is that "He's a dead American, and I'm an alive Australian"?
    You promoted this hook. It was edited on the MP because there was a concern that the hook could be taken to mean that there are no differences other than vitality and nationality between an innocent BLP and the notably-very-not-innocent Jeffery Epstein (the source phrased it as "a" difference, not "the" difference). (ERRORS)
  • (2026-03-29) ... that the freighter Hippocampus was sunk by fruit?
    You promoted this hook. It was replaced on the MP because the fact was sourced to two newspaper articles from 1868 that were just guessing. (ERRORS)
Thoughts? If you interleave your replies with the bullet points, please copy my signature to each bullet – thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Theleekycauldron,
Thanks for the questions.
  • Marc L. Greenberg - This appears to be a mistake on my behalf. Our article said engaged and the source says fiancée. In my minor defence with this one, the term fiancée is in declining usage in Australia with many calling their life partner (including those they are engaged to) simply their partner.
  • Jordan Shanks - To be honest I didn't expect that particular hook to be promoted. I added ALT2 and ALT3 after going to our discord channel seeking suggestions. I should have struck ALT0 at that time and added an ALT0a similar to what it was changed to on the mainpage.
  • Geoff Epstein - I think this comes down to different varities of English. In Australian English the hook I promoted wouldn't imply that there were no other differences. On retrospect I understand that it may in other varities of English.
  • Hippocampus - This is a pure stuff up. I ought to have been more thorough. I personally found the fruit bit more interesting and that could have been kept with some modifications to the hook to account for the sources guessing.
Please let me know if you have any other questions. TarnishedPathtalk 22:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to address Rosa Praed. I didn't consider that "slave mistress" could be taken to mean concubines. In retrospect I see it. It was a fair point on the swapping of the ordering and I should have done that myself when I promoted it. TarnishedPathtalk 23:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I didn't know that either until I noticed it in the literature whilst responding to the first issue at ERRORS - definitely an obscure difference. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Fair responses, I'll support :) for Hippocampus, I think the fact that 19th-century newspapers are marginally reliable at best, combined with the fact that it was just speculation, made a pull pretty much unavoidable. But I think you know what you don't know and you're careful, so, no objections from me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could have sworn you already had the role and am surprised you don't. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @DYK admins: , do I need to do anything else here? TarnishedPathtalk 03:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Based on the overall consensus of this thread, I went ahead and gave you template editor. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 (April 15)

[edit]

Claire Foy (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that Claire Foy (pictured) received actor awards at the 23rd and 24th Screen Actors Guild Awards for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II in The Crown?
    This is more of a sanity check: does this count as a "person doing their job" role, given it mentions her role as QEII, or does it not given that its focus is on awards? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, portraying this prominent real person is not at all "doing their job" but unusual, even more so with an award. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (As the promoter) I think winning two major awards back to back for the same role is the intriguing and unusual bit. Quite a bit beyond "just doing her job". Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't question that, - I just don't like the premise that an actor playing a role is just doing her job, - it's a creative act. Some masterpiece by Michelangelo would not be regarded as "he just did his job". - This particular hook is richer with the kind of portrayal than ending right after the second award. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    and now the hook has been pulled by Airship. I just think that portraying a famous monarch that ruled UK and the Commonwealth for over 70 years, and winning two major awards, back to back, is what makes the hook interesting and unusual to those without special knowledge. If it was just 'A portrayed B' and B is not well-known, then it definitely be a fail. JuniperChill (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no explanation provided for the pull. Given the comments already in this discussion and at the nom -- with five editors favoring ALT5: nominator, reviewer, promoter, plus JuniperChill and Gerda -- I suggest the hook be returned to prep as originally promoted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be okay with promoting back the original hook; however, Launchballer has proposed an alternative hook (which I do think is weaker than the original), which complicates things. I'd like to hear first about thoughts on the new hook before re-promoting the original. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29, please share with editors in this discussion why you pulled a hook that has support from several participants here. Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dclemens1971, sorry for the confusion, I didn’t see this discussion. I pulled the hook not because it was inaccurate but because it compromised prep-building speed; I’ve found that when one or two hooks are promoted to numerous sets but the other slots in them are left empty, prep-builders are much slower to complete the earlier sets.
    In general, unless doing a SOHA request or bearing in mind potential queueings, we should be looking to complete each prep set before moving on to the next. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Launchballer, since there was no defect with the hook, would you mind restoring the tick at the nom page so it can be returned to prep at the earliest available possibility?
    @AirshipJungleman29, thank you for the explanation. I haven't seen this preference on prep-building procedure at WP:DYKG or WP:DYKPBI. Would you mind proposing language or adding it boldly so that other prep builders have clarity about what should be expected? Right now the only guidance I see on how to fill preps is to leave certain slots open in the last open prep, and if you would like prep-builders to follow a particular process we should probably all be on the same page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing's expected Dclemens1971; it's just not that helpful to promote one, two, or three hooks into a prep when earlier ones are left unfinished. Currently, between preps 6, 7, 1, and 3, we have enough promoted hooks to almost fill a set, but instead we have four barely-started sets. No need for guidance; it's just common sense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Others might disagree. There can good reasons for promoting image hooks early (maintaining the balance between bio and non-bio images, for instance). If this is your own preference for how best to construct a prep set, please consider asking a promoter on the talk page first instead of unilaterally pulling without explanation (which, as you saw here, caused some editors to incorrectly believe there was a defect with the hook). Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Dclemens1971, for an example of what I said above ("I've found that when one or two hooks are promoted to numerous sets but the other slots in them are left empty, prep-builders are much slower to complete the earlier sets."), you can look at the current queue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a feeling that Launchballer's proposed hook 'that Claire Foy was nominated for awards for playing two separate queens?' is definitely not as interesting as what was promoted initially, as it would leave the reader wanting to know what the two are and that its not as intriguing. Its also inaccurate, as both awards were for her portraying QE2, and that she won them back to back.
    And the fact that the hook was pulled without explanation. Its why reverting/removing non-vandalism edits normally needs to be explained, as shown when I click the undo button. JuniperChill (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The original hook seems fine to me, not sure why it was pulled. The suggested replacement is factually wrong as they aren't separate queens but the same queen. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it would leave the reader wanting to know what the two are Yes, that's the idea. We write hooks to get people to read our new and improved content and finding out what they are is a reason to do that. No opinion (yet) on the pulled hook's interestingness, but she was also nominated for playing Anne Boleyn in Wolf Hall.--Launchballer 00:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but Anne Boleyn was a consort not a monarch. That seems a confusing hook to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To which the solution is "two different types of queen". (And adding that much to the article.)--Launchballer 01:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not just go with the original hook then? The new proposal seems more trouble than it's worth. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The donkey work for promotion has been done, so there's not really much reason for it not to be in prep, so I put it back. Airship's comment regarding slowing down promotions is certainly worth bearing in mind though, and possibly worth adding to the guidelines.

I noticed that @JuniperChill: has a DYKmake credit on the grounds that they're the GA reviewer, which I've not seen before. Should GA reviewers be entitled to DYKmake credits? If there's an error that should have been recognised by the GA reviewer, they ought to be pinged anyway, and the extra incentive to review might help with their backlog.--Launchballer 14:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been a {{DYKnom}} credit, to which I have adjusted it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I added the GA nom without removing myself, and didn't realise it. Its fine if I wanted to be credited as a nominator (and the fact that I wrote this comment just as Airship posted the above) JuniperChill (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (12 April)

[edit]

Do You Know Your Place? / Abby Cook (nom)

[edit]

Not an error as such, but the shoehorning of these two articles into one hook seems a bit tenuous. She appeared on the show once, but that is not what she is known for... Given her other achievements I don't think anyone would ever introduce her as a "Do You Know Your Place? guest". The link is there, in that there's one sentence mentioning the game-show appearance in her own article and a single mention of her name in the show article. But that appearance is unrelated to the main fact of the hook that she did the record-breaking reading lesson.

While it's often a good idea to combine hooks, I think in this case it would probably be better to split them into two separate entries and perhaps focus the Abby Cook one more on the fact that the 6,715 was a world record. or pivot back to the original hook including the detail of her being a Blue Peter presenter. Pinging @Unknown Temptation, Launchballer, M.Billoo2000, Zzz plant, and Crisco 1492:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: I understand, and that is why there is ALT1a as well, which I approved as a reviewer. M. Billoo 13:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, although I'm not comfortable with using the phrase "world record" on the main page per WP:DYKFIRST (no-one's counted every reading lesson in existence). What do you suggest for Do You Know Your Place?? Something like "that Do You Know Your Place?'s co-host got his job after being promoted from contestant?" (And do you think Gorton's notable?)--Launchballer 13:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have bumped the hook to Prep 3 (April 18). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concur re superlatives, although I mentioned the world record point in the context of it being listed in the Guinness Book of Records. If we explicitly stated it as that then we're sort of delegating the question of whether it's factually accurate to them in a WP:VNT fashion. But I'm not wedded to that idea. The original one of simply her being a Blue Peter host who hosted the lesson is also fine. Re Do you know your place I like that...
or something along those lines? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, @Launchballer, @M.Billoo2000 and @Narutolovehinata5 do we have an agreement on a replacement hook? TarnishedPathtalk 01:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think my concern is again left behind. Why not we are talking about ALT1a? M. Billoo 02:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm fine with ALT1a. I'm also fine with either "that Abby Cook..." or "that Blue Peter's..." or Amakuru's DYKYP hook (it's a rewording of my hook with only Gorton's name added). Alternatively, Gorton meets WP:ENT, so how do you feel either running Amakuru's hook as a double or running a triple hook beginning "that a game show co-hosted by Paul Gorton had a guest..."?--Launchballer 02:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really keen on ALT1a, for the same reason as my original point. Her appearance on the show is unrelated to the book reading. And also her appearance on the show is unremarkable. The "DYKYP had a guest..." part does not constitute an interesting fact. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled this. Please discuss at the nomination. TarnishedPathtalk 12:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: you repromoted DYKYP/Gorton but not Cook. The latter's ALT0 was actually promoted once already by @Zzz plant: and has presumably been checked by @Amakuru: so I could probably put it in prep myself, but is there a reason you didn't?--Launchballer 15:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, appologies for the oversight. Please see Special:Diff/1349144891/1349146898 and Special:Diff/1349147339. I think I've done it correctly but would appreciate you double checking. TarnishedPathtalk 00:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.--Launchballer 00:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Monegundis (nom)

[edit]

Should that be "deaths" (plural)? Schwede66 18:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds right.  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. As a non-native speaker, I thought I'd better ask whether this is another strange quirk of the English language. Schwede66 05:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66 and Amakuru: I think that "death" or "deaths" are both fine. There are many examples of both "death of her two daughters" and "deaths of her two daughters" on Google Books. TSventon (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong but I would think death of her daughters would be correct if they both died in the same event or at the same time, but that wasn't the case here, they died separately. It just sounded more correct the way Schwede66 suggested it (not sure why, I hadn't actually realised you're a non-native speaker, obviously that makes sense given what it says on your bio page though!) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for ideas online and found a discussion on Reddit, Fallen to their death or their deaths? It quoted Words Into Type, p. 357 (available via archive.org) Singular with a plural possessive. To avoid ambiguity, a singular noun is often used with a plural possessive when only one of the things possessed could belong to each individual [typos corrected]. An example given is Four pilots crashed to their death. (Other style guides are available.) I was amused by the final comment Without an 's' according to my wife. She is 99% certain. TSventon (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 (18 April)

[edit]

2013 Liechtenstein general election (nom)

[edit]

Reading this hook, I initially assumed there was some sort of constitutional change that occurred in this election, such that where previously only two parties were allowed to run, from 2013 onwards the election was open to all. However, the article describes a de facto change in the party system (a fourth party winning seats and reduced dominance of the main two), not a legal or constitutional one.

The article says "The election is generally considered the end of the two-party system between the FBP and VU, moving towards a multi-party system", but I'm not sure even that is supported by the source [1]. Translating the German, I see it says something like "In the 2010s, a trend toward diversification of Liechtenstein's political landscape began" and then notes that a fourth party won seats in 2013, but there's nobody directly attributed as saying there was a big change that took place in 2013, which suggests "generally considered" may be WP:WEASEL wording unless a stronger source is provided.

I'd suggest we may need to tweak the article text to align it more closely to the source, and then amend the hook accordingly. Pinging @TheBritinator, Crystal Drawers, and Jasper Deng:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom paragraph, first sentence: "Seit dem Wahlerfolg der Freien Liste 1993 und den Entwicklungen seit 2013 weist das politische System eine Tendenz vom vormaligen Zwei- zum Mehrparteiensystem auf" TheBritinator (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, thanks I hadn't seen that one. That said though, that additional wording still seems to support the point that this is a broader trend rather than a discrete change in 2013. The phrasing there says "eine Tendenz", i.e. a tendency/shift developing since 2013, rather than the election itself being a clear breakpoint. Given that, I'm not sure the article's "generally considered the end of the two-party system" is supported as currently phrased, and the hook may also be overstating things by implying a more definite change than the source suggests. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru Sure thing. We could change the hook to something like " ... that the 2013 Liechtenstein general election marked a shift from a two-party system towards a multi-party system? " It sounds less direct than way. TheBritinator (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru and @Amakuru, is this resolved? TarnishedPathtalk 01:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TarnishedPath, yes I'm happy with the suggested replacement hook. I have made the edit just now, so this is resolved from my point of view. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(also pinging @TheBritinator: I think that was the intention above rather than pinging me twice 😎  — Amakuru (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, all good to me. TheBritinator (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

[edit]

Assalamualaikum Beijing (nom)

[edit]

Crisco 1492, can I ask why the hook doesn't mention the embassy the chef works at, or where the location is? Seems like both of those details would garner interest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

William Rogers Chapman (nom)

[edit]

@4meter4, Gerda Arendt, and TarnishedPath: A couple of queries. Firstly, and sorry if this is obvious, but can I ask why the hook and article attribute the claim to the Associated Press, and not the Buffalo Times where it was published? Secondly, are we sure that the book the vast majority of the article relies on can be regarded as a WP:INDEPENDENT source? It was written "under the direction and with the assistance" of Chapman's widow, and she held the book's copyright. If it can't be considered an independent source, the article is eligible to be tagged for {{third party}}. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The Associated Press's journalists write the article and do all the research and fact checking. They sell their content to newspapers of all sorts who pick up the article and publish it. This same piece ran in dozens of newspapers across the country on that date. The Buffalo Times was just one of many papers that ran this obituary. Lastly, the biography isn't making any exceptional claims and was written by a journalist with a solid publishing record. It was also published by a reliable press. I don't think there's a good reason here to tag for third party sources; particularly when the content was fact checked by the author, and frankly in digging through newspaper articles the content could be swapped in most cases (but would require a ton of work to do and with little actual benefit).4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the Maine State Library wrote letters to the author complimenting the quality of the research that went into this book: https://digitalmaine.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/maine_writers_correspondence/article/1159/&path_info=jh9p18dmt5a6si67fe0uz8genxpwfc8q.pdf (see second and third letters). I would think given independent assessment by the state library that this would be a strong argument for the biography falling under "best sources".4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting about the Associated Press. The thing with independent sources is not exceptional claims, but rather due weight and tone: "A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia." Seeing as the Maine State Library had decided that it was "a most interesting and valuable work" two years before the book was published, I'm not sure that their rather obsequious praise (below) can be taken as an objective assessment:

MINISTRY OP MUSIC is a splendid literary monument to the genius of Dr. Chapman, and one for which all music lovers should be deeply grateful. We are cognizant of the responsibility which was yours in accomplishing the vast research and compilation of necessary facts, and while it must have been a fascinating task, still it entailed an unusual amount of care and precision and patience to correlate the material and weld it into the perfectly balanced, absorbing biography which you have achieved. You are to be congratulated upon performing this service to historical, biographical and Musical literature; and we, remembering Dr. Chapman with admiration, and knowing you for the accomplished and scrupulously exact writer that you are, feel a special elation in our privilege of claiming you as a Maine woman.

It's a bit much, I would say. If others disagree, though, I'll bow to consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to this review of the book in Portland Press Herald https://www.newspapers.com/article/portland-press-herald-life-of-william-ro/195203886/ the content in the book could largely be verified to content already in the published record by other journalists. As I said, it would be possible to swap out the book for newspaper sources, but it would take a very long time to do, and lots of digging through decades of newspaper archives.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This review (https://www.newspapers.com/article/winston-salem-journal-music-mainspring-o/195205004/ ) echoes the fact that the majority of the book was built from independently written newspaper sources.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given the reviews I don't see any problem with the source's usage. TarnishedPathtalk 01:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Alright, those reviews are convincing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Medical student (nom)

[edit]

@Liance, Lflin16, and Crisco 1492: This article is very US-focused. As it stands, it would certainly deserve a {{globalize}} tag and immediate pulling. Is there something obvious I'm missing? I'm also unsure whether this is an unneeded WP:CFORK of the much-more-detailed Medical education article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Besides a brief gloss of "regional expectations and jurisdictional laws", this article seems entirely focused on American medical students. If this were nominated at AfD, I'd likely support a redirect to Medical education as a content fork. Zzz plant (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. If the globalization issues cannot be addressed, maybe it can be moved to "Medical students in the United States". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected to Medical education. TarnishedPathtalk 10:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath The author has reverted you. I'm wondering if the article might be better in draft, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite I noticed and had thought about potentially starting an AFD seeking community consensus for either a redirect or a merge. TarnishedPathtalk 10:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Are you still considering bringing this up at AFD? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, sorry I'd forgotten about this. I think I'll pass. I've got it on my watchlist though, so if someone else does I'll notice. TarnishedPathtalk 06:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, despite the DYK nom falling through, it has to be resolved either way given that the article creator reverted the redirect. Courtesy ping Black Kite. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I AfD'd. Interested parties can comment there.--Launchballer 11:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Sim (nom)

[edit]

@9koyami, Barbalalaika, and Crisco 1492: I'm not sure that what the source describes as "a Twitter account operated by an individual sued by Roblox named Ruben Sim" can be described as "an independent initiative". Maybe an initiative, but certainly not independent, considering the lawsuit. I'd suggest just replacing "created an independent initiative to document" with "has documented". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough in my view, thanks for double-checking Barbalalaika 🐌 18:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: didn't receive this ping since i (9koyami) changed my username, sorry! "independent initiative" refers to the fact that simon began it on his own, and this branched out to other users making reports to assist. but please make required changes as needed if it doesn't fit, thank you! Kinnimeyu (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Adjusted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister (nom)

[edit]

@Crystal Drawers, ZooBlazer, and Crisco 1492: The hook's "was initially intended to be the second half of the season finale" is not verified in the article, which just says "They also brainstormed that the episode could be a smaller part of the ninth and final episode of the season", after citing and quoting this article which quotes the showrunner as saying "This episode was always locked in at [chapter] seven". More clarification is needed, because right now the hook, article, and sources seem out of sync. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, given the lack of discussion here so far, I think this needs to be bumped back from Queue 5. TarnishedPathtalk 01:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bumped. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We just went to make the same edit within seconds of each other, I think this is resolved now?--Launchballer 21:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and @Launchballer, is this resolved? I still see the same wording in the article. Am I missing something? I would like to take off the 'under discussion' tag if this is resolved. TarnishedPathtalk 12:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s resolved, unless I’m missing something? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, by resolved I meant 'hooks are in the right places'. I have no opinion on the nom.--Launchballer 12:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to pull this then. TarnishedPathtalk 12:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Profesor Indigo (nom)

[edit]

@Fcstmani, Narutolovehinata5, and Jasper Deng: is there no coverage of the song's subject matter (I assume it's about a teacher, but the article doesn't actually explicitly say), genre (the infobox says pop rock without citation), instrumentation, etc.? The long quote (without which the article is only just about the WP:DYKLENGTH minimum) might be more illuminating with that added context. Currently one might argue that the article doesn't meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, again this probably needs to be bumped back. TarnishedPathtalk 01:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Sorry for the extremely late reply. I have expanded the article a bit and added the song’s subject matter, (is a bit in the lead enough or should there be a whole dedicated section?). I have removed the pop rock section from the infobox, as I couldn’t find any sources that specifically mention the song’s genre. Could you elaborate on what part of the article fails DYKCOMPLETE?
Thanks, Fcstmani (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that probably just about does it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

I do feel that the rickrolling hook has been sadly underused, but I'm clearly in the minority. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chatô, o Rei do Brasil (nom)

[edit]

@DanGFSouza, Cassilvwikis, Chorchapu, and Crisco 1492: was the delay in release due to the scandal of mismanagement of public funds, or due to the mismanagement of public funds? Not quite the same thing. Whichever it is, it needs to be mentioned and cited in the body. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not speak Portuguese, so for small semantic differences such as these the nominator would be the best to answer. However from Google Translate it seems like after the mismanagement was revealed in 2008 the enterprise was ordered to repay 36mil real back to the government as the film had not been completed by the time requested. In 2014 the same seemingly happened again with 66mil real. So, likely the answer is that the scandal was the direct cause, while the mismanagement itself played a lesser role. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the former; the protracted legal battle and the mismanagement accusations. Ancine entered a suit, Fontes appealed; there was a ruling to return the money. Among it all, the film was in a limbo until 2015.DanGFSouza (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Chen (Singaporean politician)

[edit]
Moved to WP:ERRORS
 – HurricaneZetaC 18:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Prep 7 (April 15)

[edit]

2024 Olympic weightlifting hook

[edit]

@Arconning, Sammi Brie, HurricaneZeta, and Crisco 1492: I'm sorry, but I do not see how this hook meets DYKINT. Olympic champions win and lose all the time, and it is not clear from the hook how this is any different from the many other times this has happened, both at the Olympics and elsewhere. If those specific losses were unusual, then maybe, but as written the significance is unclear. I get the desire to get all these articles out of the way, but I don't see multihooks as being exempt from DYKINT. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ALT6 will not fly as it's cited in all articles to Sports Illustrated, and should be removed from all of them. ALT5 is no better or worse than the original. Frankly, meganoms like this one are already likely to do respectably at DYKSTATS (per hook at least, if not by article) and should be exempt from the requirement.--Launchballer 13:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Multinoms either being exempted from DYKINT, or the standards being loosened for them, would probably require an RfC if not a discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 Would it be interesting enough for me to formulate a hook stating that every event had exactly twelve lifters besides one due to an athlete being invited by the International Olympic Committee to compete? I do apologize that my multi-hook proposal has gotten to this point Arconning (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
For what it's worth, I think ALT5 is fairly interesting, and we should go with that if neither ALT7 is viable. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius Thanks for the formulation of a new hook! It looks better than my own writing Arconning (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think either are fine but I will defer to consensus on what hook to use. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mega-multinoms like this may just be artful and linguistically cunning enough to be interesting in and unto themselves (previous comments re: the inherently subjective nature of the concept of "interesting" in the context of DYKINT notwithstanding). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've bumped this to Prep 6 to facilitate the ongoing discussion. Any queuer/promoter is welcome to move it back forward if consensus is reached for a revised hook. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, @Arconning, @Bagumba, @Cl3phact0, @Crisco 1492, @Dclemens1971, @Epicgenius and @Launchballer are we close to any sort of agreement here? Does this need to be pulled to be workshopped in the nom? TarnishedPathtalk 12:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Me, Naruto, and Epicgenius seem to be in agreement for either ALT7A and ALT 7B but I'd have to wait for the other's opinion. Arconning (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to be bold and substitute in 7b. If anyone has any issue they can continue this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 07:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we do need moving forward is a discussion if not an RfC if DYKINT should not apply to multinoms, or at least be loosened for them, given disagreements in the past and concerns raised for previous multinoms. I would personally oppose that, but there is clearly interest in the idea and support for it, so I don't think it would hurt to find consensus either way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath @Epicgenius: Which are the statement(s) that verify the 7b hook re: the cumulative 15 medals? Thanks in advance. —Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba, each article has a results section detailing which athletes won Gold, Silver and Bronze. 5 events x 3 medals each = 15. Is that what you were looking for? TarnishedPathtalk 09:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned through text in the same section! :) Arconning (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath @Arconning: So it's no one WP page or source that explicitly says no country won more than two, right? If so, it's a bit beyond a routine 1+1=2 WP:CALC to tally it up for my taste, and seems trivial to me if no source brings it up directly. —Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba I guess something less trivial than that and properly sourced...
"ALT8A: ... that the men's featherweight, middleweight, light-heavyweight, and super-heavyweight weightlifting events at the 2024 Summer Olympics all had twelve athletes, but the men's heavyweight had thirteen due to an invitation sent by the International Olympic Committee?
"ALT8B: ... that the men's featherweight, middleweight, light-heavyweight, heavyweight, and super-heavyweight weightlifting events at the 2024 Summer Olympics each had at least twelve spots open for athletes, though only one ended having more than twelve? Arconning (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest in terms of wording? Something like "Should DYKINT apply to nominations with more than one bolded link?".--Launchballer 16:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking more of "Should DYKINT either be loosened or not apply to multinoms?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. If by loosened you mean not apply I'd trim that part.--Launchballer 17:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By "loosened" I was thinking "it is still implemented but not as strictly", which is different from not applying at all. Meaning a hook that is not as interesting on its own might be acceptable for a multihook, although it would still be a case-by-case thing and ideally we should still have an "interestingness floor" of some kind. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 (April 16)

[edit]

Nile

[edit]

This is more of a sanity check than anything, but I have read that in recent years, some have disputed that the Nile is the longest river and claim that the Amazon is actually slightly longer. Are these claims taken seriously or are they considered fringe or at least themselves debated? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you measure it, like anything else. We discussed this elsewhere a few months ago last year (refdesk, I think). Probably deserves a footnote. Even without the footnote, I think it's fine. You can split hairs like this about anything. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 we can of course always add "is considered..." for more nuance Barbalalaika 🐌 10:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I raised similar points at the FA candidacy which is active and ongoing. This parallel process seems to be an issue per WP:DYKG, ...(TFA). A nomination must go on hold if the article has pending nominations to appear at any of the same. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination to appear as Today's Featured Article is not the same as a featured article candidacy.--Launchballer 15:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only geographers promoting that dispute are those from the countries the selected part of the Amazon flows through. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived yesterday, 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 March 27. We have a total of 277 nominations, of which 163 have been approved, a gap of 114 nominations that has increased in size by 12 over the past 18 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

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) 14:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

[edit]

I've just begun the checks on Queue 7. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at People in Trouble since I promoted that one. Any further comments will follow below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in about an hour.--Launchballer 23:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly fine. I can see ERRORS getting arsey about a hook accusing a living person of adultery, but I guess if she's written a book about that it should be fine?--Launchballer 00:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured the fact that she wrote the book based on her own experience and disclosed it as such doesn't raise BLP flags. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very clean queue; thanks to all nominators, reviewers and promoters! A couple comments:

  • @MCE89 and TarnishedPath: re: Jessie Catherine Couvreur. I think this hook is just over the very lower threshold of WP:DYKINT. (A non-notable academic of my acquaintance has had a personal audience with the current King of the Belgians to brief him on their academic research, so perhaps "invited to meet the King of the Belgians" is not particularly intriguing to me.) Bringing it here in case anyone has concerns on DYKINT. I also tweaked the hook to reference King Leopold's name, since "King of Belgium" is not his actual title but "King of the Belgians" wasn't in the source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think many people would be in your position that they would know academics who have briefed kings. TarnishedPathtalk 00:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, hence why I didn't bump or pull it :) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Launchballer, 1brianm7, and Crisco 1492: re: Sophie Tea, the source says: "I was running out of money at the time while on my trip and so I came across a hostel with loads of graffiti on it and asked if I could paint a mural over it in exchange for free accommodation." It was her method of payment for a long time. Despite having not painted in six years, she managed to convince the hostel to allow her to draw a multi-coloured cow... So did she paint the cow or draw it (as the hook says)? I tend to think of a mural as a painting and I'd suggest going with that terminology but flagging it here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Er, paint. Not sure what happened there.--Launchballer 00:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bold addition to WP:DYKG re: flexibility on 5x expansions

[edit]

Based on two recent discussions about flexibility on 5x expansion (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Doubts_about_5x_expansion_for_5-Festival, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_213#Should_The_World_Is_to_Dig_be_reopened?) in which participants uniformly expressed support for granting flexibility when articles did not hit the full 5x threshold within 7 days prior to nomination, and in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO, I've boldly added a line to WP:DYKG clarifying the apparent consensus that reviewers can grant this flexibility: If an article falls very slightly short of a 5x expansion within the seven-day window before the nomination, particularly by a nominator relatively new to DYK, a reviewer has discretion to grant an exception. Anyone with thoughts on this, feel free to chime and if anyone believes we need a full discussion, feel free to revert my addition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would we want to add something about the nominator bringing the article over 5x in a relatively quick timeframe when it has been brought to their attention that they haven't quite met 5x? TarnishedPathtalk 00:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be appropriate. This OK? If an article falls very slightly short of a 5x expansion within the seven-day window before the nomination, particularly by a nominator relatively new to DYK, and the nominator acts quickly to bring the article to the required length, a reviewer has discretion to grant an exception. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is extremely fair and keeping with reviewers ability to use discretion in other aspects. TarnishedPathtalk 00:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be standard procedure, once upon a time, that if a reviewer discovered that an article came up short of 5×, the nominator was given a chance to "cure" the deficiency unless it was impractical to write that much additional material in a reasonable amount of time (seven days or so). It didn't need to be "very slightly short" (which strikes me as far too strict; strongly suggest dropping "very") or even "slightly short"; too many nominators don't know how to reliably measure the expansion, so it would come as a rude shock when it turned out what they thought was 5× has fallen short. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is still as I understand it a general procedure, so I am not opposed to adding some codification. Obviously a "very slightly short" article will be easier to "cure", but agree that at any length a good attempt to fix the issue (ie. that isn't adding pointless verbiage) is a positive in terms of article development. I would perhaps add "inadvertently" to the wording of the instructions, just to note that nominators aren't supposed to knowingly nominate articles that are not x5. CMD (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea but I see this as redundant. I think what we can instead say is that editors are encouraged to "cure" the issue and the seven-day requirement is loosened, not that it's okay to fall short of 5x. In practice, usually instead of saying it's okay if it's slightly below, the editor is instead encouraged to add a little more if possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I simplified the above to "Reviewers are encouraged not to quickfail based on length; if an article is short but can be expanded 5x, the nominator should be given an opportunity to do so.".--Launchballer 11:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This works very well. This is very much in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. TarnishedPathtalk 11:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It might need to be made more precise. For example, if a 5x expansion is feasible or close, then do it. However, what about cases where it's far from a 5x expansion? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is sufficiently covered by the part that reads if an article is short but can be expanded 5x. TarnishedPathtalk 12:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that "but can be expanded 5x" is too vague or broad. Maybe it needs the word "reasonably" there? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure. I'm not opposed to that. TarnishedPathtalk 12:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think our current fivefold regime is starting groan a little bit under the weight of this quirk. You can spend a month, two months, a year getting something to GA status and yet we still say that the weeklong timer starts right when the article is promoted, not when you started trying to get it to GA status. Not the same for fivefold expansion, for some reason.
The requirement that the fivefold expansion start and end within a week has no real purpose – it's easily circumvented – and is actively detrimental to mainspace quality. It encourages editors to hold their article improvements in draftspace and penalizes editors who work directly in mainspace. This is (1) just something that trips up new editors and serves no real purpose in making sure articles are new and (2) actively encourages people to delay improvements to the encyclopedia, hurting the average reader experience.
This is a silly technicality that we keep having to relitigate to adjust and expand to try and mitigate the harmful side effects, but honestly, we just shouldn't bother. A valid fivefold expansion is one that is the product of a good-faith, concerted effort, even if it happens to take two weeks instead of one, even if it's a bit short when you nominated. If you abandon an article for a week and then go back to it, fine, that's not a concerted effort. But trying to control this as rigorously as we have is one of several bureaucracies of DYK that newer editors find difficult and arbitrary to navigate, getting discouraged when they try. I think we should get rid of the requirement that the expansion start within a week of nomination and instead maybe have language like "the expansion has to be a reasonably continuous effort". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this perspective makes sense, although what constitutes a continuous effort would probably be harder for reviewers to adjudicate and seems like it might result in more back-and-forth over eligibility. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could be loosened from seven days to 30 days? Or even 14 days. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we were going to losen up the days requirement for newness, perhaps it would make sense to do that accross the board? I think 30 days would perhaps be too much, but I'm not adverse to 14 days. TarnishedPathtalk 23:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we already have a two-days built-in extension for new articles, plus we occasionally allow even 10 day-old articles, I wouldn't be opposed to extending the eligibility for new articles and new GAs to 10 days (whether or not this will still have a two-day extension built in, or if 10 days is generous enough, will be based on discussion). However, this might be a major change for DYK, so it will likely need an RfC before it pushes through. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the week is not about control, but about having something reasonably clearly defined for the nominator and reviewer (as clearly defined as anything in DYK is). Switching to something like "reasonably continuous effort" reads as imposing more bureaucracy, not less. CMD (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that having to do the 5x expansion within a set timeframe encourages people to do their improvements in user or draft space instead of in mainspace, especially for people who participate in the WikiCup. But this will stay true even if the time allowed for expansion is a full month. I want the freedom to abandon articles for a week or a month, so I keep any expansion I want to present at DYK in my user space until it is finished. I don't see any of the proposals here changing that. —Kusma (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Vanilla Car

[edit]

Launchballer proposed the following hook, which was approved by TarnishedPath:

  • ... that a review of a 2019 film wrote that its use of Vanilla Car made it "feel haunted by the shadow of the sex industry"?

I do not see the hook as sensational, but I do have some reservations if it is gratuitous or at least cheap since it is reliant on "sex sells". Given that sex-related hooks have been controversial lately, I am bringing up the hook here for scrutinization. I will not object if consensus is to run it, this is more of a sanity check to ensure that it should be safe to run it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a tad overconcerned. In this particular circumstance the "sex industry" is being put forward in somewhat of a sombre manner. TarnishedPathtalk 08:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's more out of an abundance of caution. More of a sanity check than anything. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more bemused that we have an article about a mobile advertising hoarding for a company which we don't have an article on. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP does set somewhat of a higher bar. TarnishedPathtalk 09:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be correct to use quotation marks? The translated text may not be an original quote and may differ as well. Here, the Google Translate displays it feels as though the shadow of the sex industry looms over this work. M. Billoo 09:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Miminity, are you able to provide a direct translation of the source, without the aid of Google? TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Note that my Japanese is slightly worst and this might be a scuff translation. “ ここで思い至るのは、本作の裏に隠されているかもしれない“もう一つの物語”である。「バーニラ、バニラ、バーニラ求人」でおなじみの、大音量で街を巡っていく“バニラトラック”が印象的に登場することが象徴しているように、本作には性風俗産業の影がつきまとっているように感じられる。” This work has some hidden “one more story” that (I) become aware of, The appearance of the memorable “Vanilla Trucks” with the familiar and very loud “Vanilla Vanilla Vanilla Recruitment” that goes around the town/city which seems symbolizes that this work feels like it is being haunted by the sex entertainment industry.
i link some key words to jisho (which I often use) for key terms so you can all verify. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see that as supporting the hook. TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Twenty Twenty Six (Prep 3)

[edit]

Nothing wrong with the hook, but the TV series doesn't mention the words "World Cup" either (per Guardian source) which I would have thought would be more hooky (or just say "never mentions the World Cup or FIFA")? Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about ... that a television series about the forthcoming 2026 FIFA World Cup neither mentions FIFA nor the World Cup? TarnishedPathtalk 10:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sounds good. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done TarnishedPathtalk 11:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be "mentions neither FIFA nor the World Cup?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you want to focus on. If you want to focus on the objects, you'd state it as you have. If you want to focus on the lack of mentioning, you'd state it as I have. TarnishedPathtalk 13:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an Engvar thing? Because your formation doesn't work at all in my dialect. Putting the neither first would only be done for two very different things. Such as "neither mentions FIFA nor uses the wingdings font". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that. I would use "mentions neither" as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"nether mentions" doesn't sound right to me. I would use "mentions neither ... nor", or I would prefer "never mentions ... or" (retaining the original never), as originally suggested by @Black Kite. Max263 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it again from neither mentions -> mentions neither. I preferred they way I'd put it due to the increased emphasis on the word mentioning; however, I'll abide by consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 22:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Broken wikitext?

[edit]

Hi, my nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Inauguration of Volodymyr Zelenskyy was just reviewed (thanks to toadboy123), but the wikitext seems to be broken, and it hasn't been placed in the "Pending DYK nominations" category. I took a quick look and can't identify the issue, so does anyone know what's wrong? Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Helpful Cat:, I don't think there is a problem, the nomination is in Category:Pending DYK nominations. The nomination is listed at Template talk:Did you know/Approved, but the approved page is currently too large, so the whole nomination is not displayed. You can look at Template talk:Did you know/Approved/week to see recent full nominations. TSventon (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, someone else fixed it before you replied. Thanks!! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer War Memorial (nom)

[edit]

I'm bringing this here for discussion and as a sanity check to make sure I'm not seeing things incorrectly.
The article references about 9 wordpress pages which purport to be reproductions of a parish magazine from about 1915ish. Usernameunique, the person who brought the article to GA and who made the DYK nomination, has stated that they have not accessed/read the originals as it would involve quite a bit of effort travelling and associated expenses. I completely get that; however, the issues I see is that Usernameunique is operating on faith that the Wordpress pages are correct reproductions of the original parish magazines, and I don't see that they should.
Curtesy pings @KJP1 and Figureskatingfan: TarnishedPathtalk 23:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TarnishedPath. Given your thoughts, I believe taking it here is the right decision. An important point that is not in the summary above is that the WordPress site in question is operated by the Royal Berkshire Archives. From 2014 to 2019, the archives operated the site, called "Berkshire at War", to (as explained here) follow the experiences of the people of Berkshire, at home and abroad, day by day through World War I, 100 years on. These authentic voices of the past come from a variety of sources at the Royal Berkshire Archives, including diaries, letters, parish magazines and school log books. Even though I haven't yet been able to track down physical copies of the parish magazines, the Royal Berkshire Archives is a reliable source, and I believe it is very reasonable to assuming that they are reproducing their own records accurately. It's also unclear what the real concern is: Is is that the Royal Berkshire Archives might have made up the articles, or inserted a few typos? The first isn't realistic, and the second wouldn't be a material issue. Note also that the article passed GA with these sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Royal Berkshire Archives have their own website, how do we know that they operate the Wordpress pages? TarnishedPathtalk 01:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, by clicking the link in my post above (This blog is produced by the Royal Berkshire Archives, the archive for the royal county of Berkshire), or—if you're afraid that that site is run by a nefarious imposter—by clicking on the second Google result for "Berkshire at War", which is the official archives site reminding readers to don't forget to take a look at our online WWI blog. Each post relates to that day or month 100 years earlier as the war unfolds before Berkshire eyes. Click on the 'Berkshire at War' link to find out more. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique, ok I'm good. If their official site claims ownership of the Wordpress pages, that's good enough. TarnishedPathtalk 02:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, TarnishedPath. Thanks for the discussion (and for coming to an agreement). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 12 Philippines set

[edit]

Philippine Independence Day is less than two months away on June 12. There was a discussion before about supporting a special set for the day. Is it time to start working on one since we're now within the two-month mark? Pinging Launchballer who has already nominated Kulay for DYK. I will also see if I can create or improve an article or two on a Filipino Japanese personality to add to the set: maybe some of us could help bring Elaiza Ikeda to GA status? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility rules

[edit]

The eligibility rules for Did You Know appear to me to favour new articles or articles which are substantially expanded. Wikipedia has a significant body of mature articles. If a new fact is added to one of these articles, it is very unlikely to trigger eligibility. I suggest that this excludes DYK from accessing new content that would be of interest to readers of the Main Page.

Making some guesses about the purposes of DYK and the Main Page in general, we should not exclude advertising the older Wikipedia content, much of which covers the more obvious (and therefore important) encyclopaedia topics. One could make the criticism that the current policy tends to pick up more trivial DYK facts

The newly included fact that most recently brought this to my mind is [2], but I am sure that there are other examples. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 09:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing such newly added interesting facts might be potentially beneficial for making DYK more interesting, but would require a significant change from our current model where most new or expanded articles (or fresh GAs) that get nominated here end up being presented on the Main Page. We often have significant backlogs at several stages of our reviewing processes, so there is little appetite for simply widening the eligibility rules. We would need to either have more people involved in the process or reject more nominations. Neither is easy to achieve, but you are welcome to try. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the other thing about expanding eligibility is that articles that aren't new or fresh through a content-review process tend to have a lot of errors creep into them over time. it's really hard to guarantee the quality of something you only edited around the edges of. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mature articles can be taken through GAN and end up on DYK. The problem is the reviewer backlog. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In The News covers what you are describing, articles which have had new facts added to them. Although in that case it's about things which are current events and getting an article on the frontpage is, from what I've seen, a lot lot harder.
As Kusma has already pointed out, we generally have backlogs here and unless we restricted eligiblity in some other aspect/s, to allow for what you propose, that backlog would only get worse. TarnishedPathtalk 00:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point of DYK is to encourage new and greatly improved content. Only allowing new articles and new GAs already creates a backlog. We should not make the requirements easier. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The cloest thing I could think of is to create/improve a related article. For instance, lets say A isn't eligible (and you can't be asked to improve A), but you created B. Then you could have A mentioned and linked in B, as well as the hook, although per WP:DYKMAJOR the hook should mostly be focused on B, which is why B is in bold. Its one indirect way to get more people to read the side article. JuniperChill (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a feature, not a bug, generally. The main point of DYK is to encourage people to create content, not just add facts to articles. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

[edit]

I was looking to promote this to queue, but as I commented on the nomination for OAP Bratislava, could we have another set of eyes before I promote? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look shortly.--Launchballer 14:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, although I had to dig for the hook source because it wasn't in the ref provided in the nom. Are people who have only commented involved? I wouldn't have said you were.--Launchballer 14:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to be safe, especially given the issues with Jew-tagging that have existed in the past (not involving this nom or nominator, but rather in general). Better safe than sorry. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additional input requested at 2022 Bolt Creek Fire

[edit]

Additional opinions are requested at 2022 Bolt Creek Fire where Superlative has been asserted as an issue, but which I feel had already been addressed in a way that satisfied any issues.--Kevmin § 16:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue wasn't the superlative itself but the need for attribution for a specific superlative claim to which all the relevant sources were attributing the claim. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1349286481"