Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status
There are currently 3 filled queues. Please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
DYK is running 24-hour sets. There are currently 21 empty slots in the preps, not counting the bottom prep.
Latest comment: 9 minutes ago64 comments13 people in discussion
Bringing this up again as there wasn't a response the last time I brought this up. There was interest in running a Philippines-related set on June 12. Is there still interest in doing so, ala the July 4 set for the US? June 12 is just over a month away, so time is running out if we still want to do this or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Correct, but as items for the set are approved they should be placed in the SOHA so they are there for promoters' awareness in advance of 12 June. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I already wrote one somewhere (I need to find it). At one point, I was writing one article per day and just saved them here and there. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I know Pbritti was interested in contributing: maybe he can also give some ideas? I'm also thinking of finding a Filipino Japanese personality who I could bring to DYK, but the ones I'm thinking of already have articles, and bringing them to GA especially in time would be impractical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can leave the exact hook wordings to you, but taking a look at the article, one thing that immediately stands out was that he was inspired to get into science when his local community mistook jet contrails as signs of the end of the world. I'm not sure how to word that exactly, but I think that's a promising angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sounds interesting. It occurs to me that I can knock at least a few more, including one about Filipinos in Hawaii, perhaps something obscure and unknown, or not. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Viriditas: Thank you. In the meantime, you can nominate the article for DYK, and perhaps discuss more hook wordings there. Time is rather short so the nomination needs to be done as soon as possible so it wouldn't be rejected on technical grounds. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can have an article on Tom Pritchard, a West Indies-born transiently-American naturalized-Filipino credited with popularizing boxing and southern fried chicken in the Philippines, done in a week or two. 1brianm7 (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I am. Some craziness with a recent move has occurred, but I plan to have it done no later than than two weeks before June 12. I have a start of a draft at Draft:Tom Pritchard (chef), and it will eventually be moved to mainspace as Tom Pritchard (restaurateur). I have gotten a bunch of sources at WP:RX, reading all of them, and some advice on copyright at Commons. Speaking on Viriditas' point, I think it'd be easier to start with an article on him. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm up for assisting, as mentioned above. I have a few days next week where I can devote a couple hours to something Filipino. I'll probably do a plant of some sort, but I can be directed towards something else if someone can point me towards the relevant sourcing. Thanks for the ping, Narutolovehinata5! Subscribing to this discussion here; ping me if it moves elsewhere. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
A thought also came to my mind: given the reception to the William and Mary College set, and how one of its complaints was that most of the hooks mentioned the college by name, is it necessary to mention the Philippines explicitly in every hook? We could also try doing something like the Papua New Guinea set where the selection and hook variety seemed more natural. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've said before that if we want one of these themed sets, we should add a final "... that the above hooks concerning _______ are taken from Wikipedia's newest content?" (or something along those lines). Heck, I think we should have a more general form of this at the end of every DYK section to get across the actual function of this section, because to the general public it just comes off as "here's some random things". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
That AfD and its predecessor suffered from bludgeoning and mulitple misinterpretations of policies including WP:INTERVIEW, which explicitly says "[a] published interview may be [...] primary or secondary". Might try an article on myself in the medium-term, i.e. not in time for this.--Launchballer23:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have uploaded another image of Pritchard that is probably of slightly better quality. I am also not committed to a first or image slot 1brianm7 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My problem with that hook was twofold. Firstly, there's no reason for me to be interested as I don't know what Eastern Samar is, although I suppose putting the hook in a Philippines set would be a bit of a clue. I'm a Brit, and where I'm from 'politician is endorsed for role but doesn't get it' is extremely common - see for example Endorsements in the 2024 Conservative Party leadership election.--Launchballer23:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good rebuttal. I suppose the second-most interesting hook would be the corruption allegations, but since those are deeply in BLP territory, we shouldn't use them. Beyond those two, I don't see any other potential hooks. However, you raise an interesting point about the relative obscurity of the name "Eastern Samar", and I think you've identified what readers might find most interesting: What is Eastern Samar, and why is an election there noteworthy? I'm not sure how to address that. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not committed to an image or a first slot, but I uploaded an uncluttered transparency if it is needed. Otherwise, I think Launchballer has their sights set!! Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am concerned about the current wording of the hook. It mentions the Philippines by name, when the mention is arguably not central to the hook fact. That means three hooks in the set that directly namedrop the Philippines, which I fear could raise concerns and drive away readers. Could the hook be reworded to avoid namedropping? Probably the only hooks that need to mention the Philippines directly are the PCIC hook (for obvious reasons) and maybe the Tom hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Radical suggestion: based on the previous W&M themed set autopsy results, I would like to put forward an unusual suggestion, somewhat in line with the above recommendations made by User:Khajidha almost a month ago, which were relevant and timely, but received no response. And that is the following: use the term Filipino or Philippines only in the first slot, anticipating and foreshadowing the rest of the set. I get that most people are going to be hostile to this idea, but I would invite you to think about it. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can only speak on Pritchard, but a lot of the sources on him emphasis the unusuality of where he was born, where he died, and who most people thought he was. I would also be hard-pressed to think of an alternative hook that is interesting and doesn't have the word Filipino, Philippines, or Philippine. I also don't really think anyone will look at that hook and his page and complain that it is too similar to other hooks. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Apologies, I said that others would be hostile to the idea, and I'm sure you're not alone. Based on Naruto's concerns stemming from the W&M set and the recommendation from Khajidha up above, I think it's the best solution. How you go about implementing that requires a radical reorganization of the set and being open to changing things around. In other words, if your hook really needs the terms, then it should be moved into the first slot. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The issue is that both of the other hooks that mention the Philippines actually require the mention as part of its interestingness, so while I'm sympathetic to the idea, it would likely require one of them having their wording or hook fact be sacrificed. But yes, my concerns were a response to the W&M set post-mortem and I don't think it would be a good idea to make the same mistakes as that one. This isn't just about the Philippines set: I think my concerns should also apply to the July 4 set next month. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I support changing the wording of the hooks that do mention it. But that idea is unlikely to receive any kind of support from others. That's why I couched this as a radical suggestion. It means doing things differently. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Pritchard wouldn't work to foreshadow the rest of the set as that hook mentions multiple countries. I'm not convinced three hooks mentioning the Philippines is that bad a thing (I'm sure we've run regular sets that happened to mention a country three times), but I support removing 'Philippine' from the Contracting Colonialism hook.--Launchballer01:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it should be mentioned more than once, preferably in the first hook slot. We are just going to experience the same low-traffic issue like W&M did due to pseudo-semantic satiation and reader exhaustion and malaise. It would be nice if we learned from our past mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
A spotcheck reveals this article has a decent amount of material cut and paste or otherwise very closely paraphrased from its sources; you can see some of the overlap by putting the Portuguese article through Earwig, but to pull some examples manually (filtered through the magic of Google Translate)
Scientist Camila Santos commented that this attempt to get close to the people can become a subject of mockery online when it is carried out by politicians from parties that have no history of connection with social movements, and therefore the idea of a "people's candidate" can ring false
Scientist Camila Santos explained to Metrópoles that the approach of connecting with the people can become a source of ridicule on the internet when it is carried out by politicians from parties that have no history of ties to social movements.In these situations, the idea of a "candidate of the people" can sound false, the expert analyzes.
or, in the orignal pt article and source:
A cientista Camila Santos comentou que a aproximação com o povo pode virar motivo de piada na Internet quando é protagonizada por políticos de partidos que não têm histórico de ligação com movimentos sociais e, portanto, a ideia de "candidato do povo" pode soar falsa
&
A cientista Camila Santos explicou ao Metrópoles que a aproximação com o povo pode virar motivo de piada na internet quando é protagonizada por políticos de partidos que não têm histórico de ligação com movimentos sociais. Nessas situações, a ideia de “candidato do povo” pode soar falsa, analisa a especialista.
Picking another example
Lawyer and university professor Francis Ricken, who holds a master's degree in political science, commented that the politician's idea isn't always to seem like "one of the common folk," but rather to show themselves in that urban context
compare to source:
explains lawyer and university professor, with a master's degree in political science, Francis Ricken .
The expert says that the idea of a politician isn't always to appear "of the people," but rather to present themselves within that urban context.
Also, similarly copyright related, but much easier to fix: local policies mandate that we attribute the authors/source of the text on the actual article, not just its talkpage; a note saying that you translated it from ptWiki, and expecting Wikidata to work, is insufficient, as is the template (you can see more on its documentation). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸06:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago77 comments18 people in discussion
At the moment, I am counting over 40 nominations not appearing due to PEIS issues. I've tried approving or reviewing a few nominations to help things along, but the rate of nominations along with existing reviews not necessarily leading to approvals means that such methods only help so much. We may need to be more aggressive in timing out or closing nominations at this point, though the issue is that few nominations are close to the two-month mark, and closing them won't be enough either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
backlog mode seems like the standard answer here; i'll also suggest that we could do away with a lot of instruction creep and convoluted process by switching expiry from being based on time to being based on current capacity (i.e. instead of "everything older than 2 months is eligible for timeout", we could do "everything beyond the newest 180 unapproved is eligible for timeout"). Or we could lower the timeout threshold from 2 months to 1 month, which would keep us at about 180 nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some of my first noms took around a month to get reviewed, and I think if they had gotten rejected for time and not any actual issues I would probably have never interacted with DYK again. I'm fairly certain this would lead to fewer nominations from people who don't already have dozens. I'd much rather see the article size requirement raised a bit, given how 1500 bytes is borderline-stubby, but if it was 2000 being only a few bytes over is a lot less likely to be a stub. ScalarFactor (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
If we were to adopt a proposal like Leeky's (and I'm not saying I support it, but I'm open to it), I'd like to see it applied only to experienced contributors. New DYK participants often need some runway to learn our weird procedures, how to construct good hooks, and how to ensure sourcing is up to DYK standards -- and their nominations can benefit from two months. However, if a DYK participant with 20, 30, 40 or 50+ hooks under their belt is submitting hooks that sit for a month with reviewers or promoters unwilling to move them on, they should know better at that point how to write hooks that work, and a quicker timeout window might be appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand why this can't be solved by simply letting unloved, non-starter noms that none of the participants in the DYK project deem worthy of reviewing or promoting fade away (for whatever reason—no questions asked, no excuses needed). Not every nom is a winner. Where does it say that every one of them gets a prize? We don't need to give them all the same level of attention. Harsh and Darwinian on some level, perhaps— but there's no accounting for taste. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unless someone affirmatively rejects the nomination, it lingers for 2+ months and can contribute to the transclusion problems we're discussing. Unloved, non-starter noms still make it harder for DYK to function even if everyone ignores them. I think we're doing a good job right now of rejecting noms (I've done my share!) but there are still edge cases that seemingly no one wants to reject or promote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
One of the recurring issues that doesn't have an easy fix is lingering nominations, not necessarily the amount of nominations. Ideas like timing out nominations or limiting the maximum number of nominations can account for how many nominations we can process, but it doesn't actually help speed up processing those nominations. The problem isn't necessarily we get too many nominations, it's that those nominations stay at DYKN for too long. Sometimes it's for reasons beyond our control: the nominator is busy and cannot work until later. Sometimes a topic is very difficult and thus most editors avoid reviewing it (contentious topic DYKs tend to linger because of this).
One possible solution is to have some kind of "soft" timeout where a nomination that isn't approved within a certain period following a review (say, around two weeks), is eligible for closure. For example, if a nomination is reviewed on May 29, the nominator has until June 12 to address all concerns, after which the reviewer or an uninvolved editor can close it. We could even have some kind of script that could highlight "stale" nominations to make those going through DYKN spot them more easily. The timer would only start once a full review has been done, so this wouldn't apply to nominations still pending their first review. This idea would also complement rather than replace the two-month limit.
Untranscluded noms down to 22 after several were rejected for inactivity or closed as timed out. I agree we need to move to backlog mode soon, and certainly before June 1 when the GAN backlog drive starts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Note, however, that we have upcoming special occasion sets for June 12 (Philippine Independence Day) and July 4 (Fourth of July), so just in case we go to two-a-day, those will have to be taken into account. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Backlog mode is entirely independent from two-per-day sets. Backlog mode is activated by community consensus; two-a-days can happen whenever volunteers move six preps into queue and are thus harder to order up. (And I agree with Launchballer, let's activate UBM on 1 June.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
GAN has now reached over 1000 nominations (of which 896 are awaiting review) for the first time also. I haven't been editing much this week due to the heatwave in England (having reached over 30! degrees in May, breaking records) I do agree with enabling UBM next month due to the large backlog and its great that GAN is doing so a few times a year. JuniperChill (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dclemens1971: I am asking why people, including yourself, Launchballer and Narutolovehinata5, did not support moving to backlog mode when I suggested it twelve days ago, when there were 24 untranscluded nominations. TSventon (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
My position, albeit a minority, has been to have backlog mode as the default, thought that position was criticized in the past for leading to too few nominations if not properly checked. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because, as I pointed out at the time, the problem then was some large nominations taking up space. At that time approving or rejecting three nominations reduced the untranscluded total by something like 13. That’s a problem of managing the lengthy noms, not simply the overall volumes. At this point, we don’t have the same number of long noms clogging the page that can be readily addressed, so now it’s time to switch to UBM. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
While it can't address the problem completely, have we looked into mitigations for PEIS issues through the DYK nomination templates themselves? I know WP:FAC forbids certain templates (such as {{tq}} in favor of just {{green}}). I presume the various tick templates cannot be removed, but replacing tq with green (or just normal quotes) could potentially help. If I take the first paragraph of lorem ipsum from Lorem ipsum §Example text, tq pushes it to 2,808 bytes vs green's 489 (and the un-templated... 0).
Looking at just the hooks from one of my previous noms, the original has a PEIS of 4,764 bytes. By replacing the {{smalldiv}} that surrounds the source for hook 1 with <small></small> tags, and the Created by... QPQs required bit as well, it gets reduced to 2,166 bytes, as seen here. This does change the output of the rendered text somewhat, and I'm sure that this depends on how long the text inside the small tags is, but I presume it'll amount to at least several hundred bytes on every single DYK nom.
Similarly, trying to limit the presence of {{cite web}}, etc, may be beneficial. I'm guilty of this too because it's very easy to just copy a full citation from the article, but commenting out the cite templates in favor of just the {{twlac}} urls on this nom reduced it from 29,228 bytes at this revision to 17,499 bytes at the current revision. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I stopped using cite templates ten years ago. I only returned to using them again this month because three different editors complained within the last year. If I go back to not using them again, will I be helping to mitigate PEIS issues? Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It'd probably be better if there was official guidance on whether or not it's appropriate. While I'm firmly in favor of cite templates over bare URLs in the actual articles, concerns like link rot generally aren't as relevant for the ~2-3 months it can generally take for a DYK nomination to make it to the front page. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've never heard of encouraging using cite templates for the source field in DYK nominations. I've always just used a barelink and a short excerpt from the reference for that, no templates required. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ScalarFactor: part of the reason for trying to stop the number of noms in DYKN and DYKNA increasing is that a longer pipeline means that noms have to wait longer before being published. So increasing the number of noms before PEIS is triggered would be a mixed blessing. TSventon (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I mentioned this in a comment above, but maybe this idea could use its own section so that it could be workshopped further. As I said before, one of our recurring issues isn't having excess nominations, but rather nominations spending too long at DYKN and taking weeks or even months to be approved. The idea here is doing something similar to what GAN and GAR already do: once a review starts, the nominator has up to two weeks to address all concerns or to respond to a review. If this isn't done, the reviewer or any uninvolved editor can close the nomination.
This could be a soft rather than a hard limit: extensions could be granted depending on circumstances, such as an editor being unavailable during those two weeks, although in such cases, maybe the nominator has to commit to promising to return, or being given the option of whether or not they see the nomination still being feasible. It also does not account for edge cases: for example, say a nomination is approved within two weeks, but then is brought back to DYKN after new concerns are raised. Should that lead to another two weeks, or should the deadline be adjusted?
The idea would also not replace the two-month time limit: that is still an option, for example, with nominations that simply fail to be reviewed after two months, maybe due to lack of editor interest. This is more of an incentive to process nominations as quickly as possible; it also would not require backlog mode since this idea would be on all the time.
This is more of an idea rather than a proposal, so maybe this could be workshopped further or even questioned, but the idea should hopefully help speed our processing times along, since even backlog mode can only help so much and doesn't actually solve the issue of some nominations remaining unaddressed for too long. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
As I say below, I think layering in another squishy rule really adds to the complexity of our already-byzantine procedures, and I don't think this would necessarily catch enough to really fix the problem we're trying to fix. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. I like what this is trying to do, but sometimes a review is not complete because the reviewer doesn't respond quickly: that's not the nominator's fault. Also, sometimes the nominator or reviewer doesn't realise that there is a problem with getting an article approved. I think I prefer the status quo over this, even if it is annoying for DYK monitors to nudge editors to get nominations moving. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Actually, part of the reasoning behind this proposal is that it would also encourage reviewers to come back and finish the reviewer. This could perhaps even be paired with another proposal, such as for example disqualifying QPQs from reviewers if they don't return within two weeks, although that could possibly be a separate proposal. One flaw I just realized with this idea is how it would affect requests for second opinions: would that reset the timer? That could use some workshopping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
splitting out an above discussion; I'll just propose this instead of letting it sit in purgatory. Should we change DYKTIMEOUT to read:
The oldest nominations on a DYK nomination list page may be closed as unsuccessful at the discretion of reviewers and promoters when that DYK page is unable to transclude the newest nominations, or when a given nomination is over two months old. Consider not timing out nominations that are on hold; waiting for review or re-review; or made by editors that are new to DYK.
Support: Open to tweaks here, but I think we badly need some simplicity in our procedures and this essentially removes the need for complicated, consensus-based manual shifts like unreviewed backlog mode and 12-hour sets. We want to make sure DYK doesn't have PEIS problems; let's just orient our backlog procedures towards that goal so that we don't have to keep coming back here and tugging out hairs over what switches to flip and when. I expect that this will be clean and easy to implement and that some time later, we can come back to recognize UBM as vestigial and remove it. I would oppose a "has been waiting for review for two weeks" rule because I think it adds complexity on top of our existing procedures. (I would also be happy to just cap the unapproved backlog at 180 and the approved backlog at 120, but I think that's more roundabout than what we want. We want to avoid the PEIS limits, let's just do that.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: I think this makes the potential closing of nominations as being more circumstantial. I'm more supportive of Naruto's idea above. TarnishedPathtalk00:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I like the idea, but my concern is that it doesn't really give an incentive for reviewers to actually complete reviews or for nominators to address concerns. Even if you have a "hard" limit, whether it be 180 nominations or "when PEIS issues happen", there is nothing stopping a nomination from lingering without a resolution until timeout happens, as is already happening. My proposal at least incentivizes faster processing, encourages nominators to be responsive, and reviewers actually checking back on a nomination rather than abandoning their review. As stated earlier, both GAN and GAR already do something similar, among other processes, so it's not like there's no precedent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hm, interesting. Seems like we're tackling this from different angles, so they could just be combined?
The oldest nominations on a DYK nomination list page may be closed as unsuccessful at the discretion of reviewers and promoters when that DYK page is unable to transclude the newest nominations; when a given nomination is over two months old; or when two weeks have passed since a given nomination was reviewed. Consider not timing out nominations that are on hold; waiting for review or re-review; or made by editors that are new to DYK.
I'm open to that, but I can easily imagine the "unapproved but reviewed nominations being closed within two weeks" thing being effective enough that it makes the other methods unnecessary, if done right. I guess it won't hurt to try it out and see how it ends up affecting the existing timeout procedure or the other proposals like the hard limit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
or when two weeks have passed since a given nomination was reviewed.
If this means the nomination can be failed if the nominator hasn't bothered to respond to concerns from a reviewer within two weeks, I would be in favour of that. Indeed, I think two weeks is probably over-generous. I have proposed that nominations become eligible for closure if the nominator hasn't responded for a week multiple times on this page, but it's never received support. If consensus is finally turning in favour of this proposal, then I am on board with it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would like to add "or when two weeks have passed since a given nomination was reviewed and there hasn't been a sufficient response or the nomination has stalled without responses." I don't want a reviewer getting a nom declined because they are insisting on edits outside the scope of DYK. Also, if there's a good discussion going on in the review, I don't want a time pressure causing the nom to get rushed. Adding this wording would codify what already happens, which helps nominators know what the process is at DYK. A "sufficient response" would be the nominator addressing the concerns in the article by making fixes or replying to the comments in the nomination. A nominator saying that they are "working on it" is not sufficient by itself: progress has to be made towards a resolution. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
trying to codify something like that might make it harder to close nominations than it is right now; two weeks of fully no response is more than I would give a lot of people. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Z1720 and @Gatoclass: What do you think of my original proposal (i.e. sans the two-week clause)? That's more NLH5's idea above, I was more concerned about getting us back below PEIS limit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
As I said earlier, I am not terribly keen on the notion of giving older noms the flick just because of a transclusion issue. The notion of nixing noms where the nominator is tardy in their responses, however, has appeal - although, again, I think two weeks would be too long - a week would suffice. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would rather that noms are timed out after a certain time limit (two months? two weeks after no response?) That would give nominators a sense of predictability in their noms. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if a culture change is also needed here. At GAN and GAR, we already have reviewers working within a specified time limit, and they are encouraged to work within that timeframe. On DYK, our timeframe is theoretically indefinite (even the two-month limit is a soft limit), meaning there's less urgency to go back to a review and finish the work. It's weird considering that DYK is theoretically an easier or more manageable thing than either GAN or GAR, which are supposed to be more thorough. I can't see why we can't encourage reviewers to be more prompt when necessary: maybe we need to implement incentives or demerits for prolonged reviews. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:02, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment I calculate that DYK reviewers would need to time out an extra 2 nominations a day to keep up with nominations and replace the use of 12 hour sets, see #Stats again below. That sounds challenging to achieve and is likely to be unpopular. TSventon (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Come to that, I'm not really seeing the need to give noms the flick like this in any case. We have always had a modest excess of noms, which has always been resolved by running 12-hour sets for maybe three weeks over the year. As for the transclusion issue, it's not really a problem at all, since it makes no difference to the total number of untranscluded noms whether or not there is a pile of untranscluded noms at the bottom.
Having said that, I still think there is a case for nixing nominations where the nominator doesn't bother replying to concerns within a week, because it can make discussions drag out interminably. If you are not interested enough in your own nom to respond to concerns within a reasonable timeframe, why should anyone else be expected to spend their time and energy reviewing it? Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the pile of nominations at the bottom, most of those are unreviewed and don't take up space, so they don't really cause the PEIS issues. What cause the PEIS issues are pending nominations. There's also an argument to be made here that, arguably, even one week might be generous depending on circumstances. For example, an editor who is active elsewhere on Wikipedia and has already been messaged about a review, but has not either edited the article nor responded. One week might be a reasonable upper limit, but even continuing to edit without a response just a few days later is usually already a worrying sign. Narutolovehinata5 (talk
I can't remember if I've brought this up in another discussion or not, but one observation I've made is that non-responsiveness is particularly common from new nominators (new meaning non-QPQ eligible nominators for our purposes). Perhaps one possible solution to that could be some kind of automatic "welcome" talk page message introducing them to DYK, telling them about the requirements, and also encouraging them to be responsive or check back on their nominations. It could also help one of our recurring issues where our quickfailed nominations disproportionately come from new nominators too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The idea I had was that, if a nomination was made using the wizard and this is their first nomination, the wizard would also automatically leave them such a welcome message. It could also be handled by GalliumBot in case the nomination was somehow created manually. I imagine that coding in leaving such messages wouldn't be difficult, the question would be more what the content of the message would be. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I just closed Template:Did you know nominations/Rebbachisaurus after it was rejected due to the nominator not responding to the review despite continuous on-Wiki activity. The nominator is also a DYK newcomer, and a quick check of their nominations suggests that they seldom respond to discussions. This is not an uncommon occurrence, so perhaps this is another data point for the need to have a welcome message, if only to convince DYK newcomers about the importance of responsiveness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@theleekycauldron I understand from the 2025 discussion that DYK reviewers approve around 4,000 noms a year. DYK can publish 3,285 noms (365 x 9) with 24-hour sets. This leaves a shortfall of around 715 noms to deal with, around 2 a day.
In 2025 12-hour sets ran for about 69 days (69 x 9 = 621 noms) and the pipeline/backlog of unapproved (N) and approved (A) noms increased from 279 (31 Dec 2024 93 N + 186 A) to 361 (31 Dec 2025 143 N + 218 A), an increase of 81. That implies that around 3,988 noms were approved (3,285 + 621 + 82), just under 4,000. TSventon (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@theleekycauldron you said I can say easily enough that in 2024, there were 3,566 passed nominations and 396 failed nominations, for a total of 3,962 nominations and a pass rate of 90%. Please could you repeat the calculation for 2025? TSventon (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Theleekycauldron: I'm curious: among those failed nominations for both years, what percentage of them were by QPQ-ineligible nominators, and what percentage were by first-time nominators? I'm also curious about the pass rate for first-time nominations in general. Depending on those stats, it might be a further argument in favor of a welcome message. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nominators with 50 or more successful DYK nominations will be required to provide two QPQs to make a DYK nomination. In theory, these users have demonstrated that they understand how to review DYK noms because they've done it at least 45 times. This would give these nominators a little predictability, as the number of QPQs needed will not change due to a backlog mode being activated. Counting the noms currently on DYKN, if this proposal was already implemented it would have resulted in 58 additional reviews. Z1720 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We already have backlog mode, which does the same thing (at least two QPQs for nominators with 20+ nominations, plus one extra QPQ for multi-noms). What you're essentially proposing is making backlog mode permanent, which I'd support but would likely receive pushback because it has occasionally resulted in too few nominations (as TarnishedPath has stated). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This concern is why this proposal increases the number from 20+ to 50+. If this was implemented and it caused a shortage of nominations, the number can be increased further. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose, Backlog mode already forces this, and @Z1720: can you show that the percentage of nominations coming in from 50+ nominators would in any way have a significant impact on the influx of noms while accounting for the inevitable attrition it would cause from participants leaving the project entirety? The biggest impacts to PEIS/Backlogging happening are Wikicup and review drives from OUTSIDE this project. We should be looking there for solutions, not penalizing contirubutors here for external factors.--Kevmin§17:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Kevmin: Re: "can you show that the percentage of nominations coming in from 50+ nominators would in any way have a significant impact on the influx of noms while accounting for the inevitable attrition it would cause from participants leaving the project entirety?" For the first part of the questions, I looked at the past week of noms at DYK (May 17-23), which amounted to 84 nominations. I chose this age range because additional nominations for these dates are unlikely to be added (outside the 7 day window of DYK), accounted for editing habits (editors who edit primarily on weekdays vs, weekends, etc) and nominations in WP:DYKNA were unlikely to have been promoted to the queue, since there are numerous nominations above them. In this time period, there were 84 nominations. 56 required a QPQ (nom had more than 5 noms). If the UBM of 20+ was implemented during this time, 38 nominations would have needed an additional review. If this proposal (50+) was implemented, 29 would have needed an additional review.
For the second part of the question: I can't look into the minds of Wikieditors nor predict the future, so it'll be hard to predict what would be attrition from Wikieditors leaving the project, but the flip side can also be true: how many new editors leave the project entirely because it takes a month for their article to appear at DYK, so the thrill of the accomplishment is diminished? Or even worse, how many new editors will leave Wikipedia entirely, because it took too long to get the thrill of the main page? How many editors with 20-49 noms will leave the project when the UBM is implemented, who would only have to do one review if this proposal was implemented? DYK was one of the gateways for me to start getting the wikibug, and I would rather see more new editors' noms reach the main page faster. There's also the question of "waiting it out": how many nominators hold off on DYK noms (keeping articles in their sandbox) until the UBM is complete? If the UBM would never end, they wouldn't wait to post their noms because they will have to do 2 reviews no matter what. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I supported this the last time it came up, but I thought the discussion showed that the backlog wouldn't change all that much if implemented because of the bottleneck between noms, approvals, and promotions. Viriditas (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: DYKUBM already does this with the flexibility of only needing to be called off by one experienced editor pinging DYK admins. I don't think making DYKUBM more like a permanent guideline would be good, as it would be require further consensus whenever changes are needed. TarnishedPathtalk22:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose because UBM already puts pressure onto those who promote the nominations (both to prep and then to queue) and we normally have a limit of processing 9 hooks every day since we mostly stopped doing 2 sets a day. JuniperChill (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wouldn't enlarging the set from 9 to 12 help address the bottleneck? Looking at the main page right now, it looks like it is capped at ~9 due to layout and presentation, but expanding it to 12 might be doable. Also the main page design hasn't been addressed for 20 years. I can imagine many different ways a main page redesign (it's 2026, people) could allow up to 20 hooks a day, maybe rotating in different areas of the set, etc. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wouldn't enlarging the set from 9 to 12 help address the bottleneck?
Doing that would increase the pressure on set builders and those approving from prep to queue. I don't think you'll find much support for that. TarnishedPathtalk23:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Even increasing to nine was already a big ask. I can actually see the argument to increasing sets to 10 hooks, which is incremental and not that huge of an additional workload. Plus, nine doesn't sound like a round number for something like this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This may be a slightly random place to ask this, but is there anything that I, when submitting DYK hooks or reviewing them, can do to make prep-builders and approvers jobs easier? So far my main thing has been trying to make sure the hook fact is as clearly sourced as possible, adding supporting quotes to the nom page, and vowing to sit on my hands if anybody in the promoting/queuing stage makes a change to a hook where the only critique I have is that I don't (personally) like the change. (I'll pipe up if I feel a tweak compromised factual accuracy or introduces a BLP issue, but otherwise I get out the way and let y'all do the work.) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸00:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - I find that, whenever we roll out UBM, the most active contributors tend to take a step back. If we were to make this permanent, we could lose them.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. To add to what Crisco said: as a DYK regular with my fair share of RL commitments, I'm concerned making this change permanent could be potentially burdensome on DYK regulars with tiresome commitments like school, day jobs, or the like. (Heck, I was on an unscheduled long walk away from home while writing this.) ミラP@Miraclepine00:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I also oppose for reasons cited above. Doing reviews is a chore and I don’t want to increase chore work when it’s not necessary. Having to do two reviews always would also disincentivize our most active reviewers from doing non-QPQ-eligible alt hook reviews or picking up abandoned reviews to keep nominations moving. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
This nomination sat unreviewed for 41 days. The first rejection cited my delay in responding. I asked for reopening, got it, then addressed multiple comments including shortening the hook as two editors requested. Then it was rejected again followed by a quickly closure without chance to reply. Actually I had missed one point from the reviewer (not sure why). That’s on me, but the issue is rather minor (still important) and fixable in minutes.
Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions states that rejection is for cases where an article is "completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work." That doesn’t seem to fit here. The missing fix can be resolved quickly. Please reopen and I’ll resolve the outstanding point immediately. I've done or reviewed more than 120 DYKs so far. Granting this request would be encouraging and let me keep contributing productively. Best. --MhhosseintalkMhhosseintalk05:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The last remaining issue wasn't minor, the issue was actually significant in that it was the very thing that had been asked to be done from the start. In addition, Dclemens1971's original closing request was reasonable: no response to the issue despite activity elsewhere on Wikipedia, not even an acknowledgement. He was also right in saying that, if you were going to be unavailable, you should have said so from the start, along with saying why you replied so late in the first place. The reopening was already grace being given and isn't something we usually grant: the issues should have been addressed following the review rather than requiring waiting for it to be closed initially to be addressed. Had there been a message saying "I will get to this soon" rather than silence, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. Given how we are currently having PEIS issues and are also starting to encourage prompt responses to reviews, both closures seemed fair. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Narutolovehinata5 for the explanations. I clearly stated that was on me missing the important point. The reopening was grace, I appreciate that, and I did address multiple items including the hook itself among other edits.
(Involved, as the reviewer in question) I have to agree with Naruto here. After I left my review, you made two comments responding to the non-review comments but not acknowledging you'd seen the review or that you intended to respond to it. One of your comments argued with a very reasonable objection (one I also made in my review) that the hook needed to be reconstructed, which sent a signal you were not going to be amenable to changes to the hook. Then, when given a chance to address the review, you did not do so, declining to address my concern on NPOV and apparently misreading the review and telling me I was wrong when your reply was not responsive to my actual concern. And neutrality is not a rather minor issue. NPOV is a core pillar of Wikipedia, and both your revised hook and article continued to include the non-neutral presentation of casualty figures. All of these missteps (arguing with a commenter about the hookiness of your hook, not notifying the reviewer that you were going to work on the article, and misreading the review and replying to a point not made) come off as rookie mistakes, and had you been a DYK rookie I would have pointed that out and tried to coach you through them. But you are, as you have pointed out here, an experienced DYK participant. Seeing this many missteps from an experienced participant led me to believe that pursuing this nomination further would have been a time sink for me, for you, and for others, and seeing as how the reopening did not result in a hook that complied with DYK guidelines, I decided not to commit more time to the review. If you want to see this article at DYK, please take it to GAN to make it re-eligible. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
First, I did engage with the comments (as opposed to what stated in his edit summary). After the reopening, I tried to resolve the article's neutrality and copyvio, shortened the hook as requested by two editors. I missed one point from Dclemens1971's review—that's true as I already said—but that point (NPOV on casualty figures) can be fixed one way or another (for instance by making proper attributions in the text and hook). Calling that "insurmountable" or a "significant" issue that requires GAN is overblown.
Second, the claim that I argued against a reasonable objection and sent a signal I wasn't amenable to changes—that's not accurate. I engaged in good faith just missed the reviewer's point (honestly repeating it for the 4th time -WP:AGF).
Third, the quick closure without letting me respond to the second rejection is the problem here. Even if I made a mistake, the normal process is to point it out and let the nominator fix it, not close the nomination instantly. That's what the reviewer instructions say: rejection is for insurmountable work, not for a small fix. If Dclemens1971 is not willing to continue the review, DYK guidelines allow calling for another reviewer.
Last, regardless of the outcome, the repeated "DYK rookie" remarks from Dclemens1971 are unnecessary and unhelpful. Calling me a rookie multiple times doesn't strengthen the case against my nomination—it just feels like a dig. We can disagree without that. --Mhhosseintalk16:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I didn’t call you a rookie; I noted that you are an experienced participant. I said you made three mistakes in the process that would have been mistakes typical of a DYK rookie. That is a comment on observed behaviour, not a comment about you personally. I think the comment I made above is comprehensive so I will leave it at that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Since both editors were involved in the closed hook, and I'd like to wait for a 3rd opinion. I am not sure if BlueMoonset is willing to share his thoughts on this matter. Details are provided. Maybe it is worth adding that on 23 May, I was active only for 7 mins and responded to some comments holding up for a longer time inside this brief period. Thanks. --Mhhosseintalk15:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The questions that remain unanswered are: 1. why you didn't respond to the review the first time, despite it being almost a week between the initial review and the marking for closure, and 2. if you knew you wouldn't be able to respond immediately, why you didn't leave a "I will check back later" message. Nominations are rarely closed without giving the nominator a chance to respond, and nominators are expected to respond to concerns as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Two fair concerns are raised. My response; first, trying to remind someone that they are wrong, if applicable, can be useful when that person is escaping from admitting their mistakes. I don't recall ever saying that being late was not a mistake. The project is important to me as well. Second, I did not know I would be in a situation where I would go a full week without having the necessary conditions to respond (this one answers covers your concerns I hope). And third, you're right: I could have left a single 'wait' comment. Maybe I left it with the hope of getting back to it soon with the required article edits. --Mhhosseintalk04:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 hours ago9 comments6 people in discussion
I was wondering if there'd be any interest in possibly running a FIFA World Cup-based set (or even just an association football set in general) for the day of this year's FIFA World Cup final (19 July), since it's just over a month and a half away? There was only one DYK hook + an FA ran for the previous final in 2022, but a full set was ran on the day of the 2018 final, so there is some past precedent for it.
I've already got one article currently nominated (Brazil v France (1958 FIFA World Cup), nomination here) with the suggestion of running it the day of the final, another active nomination (Jean Varraud, nomination here) that would very likely work for it, plus another two that I currently plan to work on (one's in draftspace right now, while the other is a 5x expansion that I'd been planning for a bit now). ShadowBallX (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not sure if there's interest in a whole set, but we could do something similar to the Olympics where we regularly run Olympics-related hooks during the whole Games. It might actually be more practical as well to have a special "period" rather than a set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support an association football set for this day, with the caveat that it must follow the principles of WP:DYKVAR, with geographic and historical diversity and an appropriate balance of bios and non-bios. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Update to this, I currently have three active nominations that would work perfectly for an association football set (the Brazil v France match mentioned above, plus Rudi Glöckner and Rappresentativa OPBG), as well as another potential two to four articles in varying stages of progress that would most likely work. Additionally, I've shot a message over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see if there was any interest over there about it.
As well, if the set idea does goes ahead and there ends up not being any interest from other people, I'd be willing to provide all the hooks for it, provided that's allowed (I actually have no idea if it is or not). ShadowBallX (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's not prohibited to have a set all be by the same person (we've done a few in the past), but it's not seen as ideal, and it's been a point of criticism before. We usually don't like running more than one or two hooks by the same editor at a time. Given that we actually have multiple football/soccer-specializing editors at DYK, it might be a good idea to coordinate with another editor who could chime in and help share the workload. Maybe SounderBruce and others are interested? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think there's an issue with having all or most of the hooks done by one person as long as they otherwise meet DYKVAR. The Papua New Guinea set was done by one person and it was terrific and very well received. The issue arises when the topic set is too narrow, and "association football" isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support having a whole set for one day. That day can be final, but it needs more discussion. As for the topics, the hooks should focus on related cultures, cities, stadiums, and other pertinent subjects to enhance the idea's acceptability. --Mhhosseintalk15:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support This prompted me to expand Lazăr Sfera as my potential contribution to that set -- hopefully it meets at least the "association football set in general" criterion. (Will nominate it soon.) Dahn (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ideally there's more lead time, but it seems like something that might encourage article creations/expansions. DYKVAR would still need to be kept to as much as possible, as mentioned above. CMD (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago14 comments7 people in discussion
We currently have three American football hooks in Prep: Mark Cooney in Prep 7 (June 3), Tom Beck in Prep 2 (June 5), and the Michigan State Spartans hook in Prep 3 (June 6). Suggest spreading the three out further to avoid running too many American football-related hooks in a short period of time. I also have some minor reservations about the Spartans hook in that international readers may not get what "first-team All-American" means; at minimum, there probably should be a pipe-link somewhere there, but if a more "globally accessible" wording is possible then that could be done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We've got a surfeit of American football hooks in the approved list, which is why they're appearing in prep a bit more often than usual. (And I think American football is a wider topic than, say, Jilly Cooper novels or Genshin Impact characters, such that we don't need to force multiple days in between when they appear.) But feel free to space the existing hooks out in the prep areas as you see fit. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We've had to link All-American before because the phrase is meaningless to most of the world's population, though I can't remember what sport that was about. The Spartans one refers to the 1965 All-America college football team but that's a useless link because it doesn't explain what the phrase means either, it just links to another article. I think you'd have to pipelink to either (a) All-America college football team, which at least explains the term in the first paragraph even if the article is partly unsourced and mostly talks about the minutiae of selection, or (b) All-America which again explains the term in the first sentence but is not a very good article either. The other thing is the phrase "first-team All-American" - is that the same thing, or is "first-team" different? Pinging @Cbl62 and Miraclepine: as nominator and approver. Black Kite (talk)12:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, not all All-American teams are first-team ones; the phrase self-explanatorily implies that there are other non-first-place All-American teams. And as for the link, shouldn't they get that America means the US given college football is primarily from the US? ミラP@Miraclepine13:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The issue isn't about it being generic "football" vs. "American football" (which has been the issue in the past), it's what being "All-American" means and what it means to be in the "first-team". I guess the equivalent would be Best XI league teams in soccer, which are probably more famous concept internationally but still requires sports knowledge. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's correct. The phrase "All-American" is meaningless to most people outside the US and we've had this issue in the past. So the question is what do we link it to? Black Kite (talk)18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
That works, but the question is if the linking is enough to satisfy the clarity concerns. Right now, all the Preps are full, so once more sets are Queued or have run, I would suggest probably spacing the hooks by two or three days. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
We generally get a lot of American football hooks. The amount we get limits our ability to spread them out, unless we were to raise the bar on what is considered "interesting". TarnishedPathtalk09:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
While the spacing is probably okay, just to note here, Zac Alcorn was promoted to Prep 1 (June 11). The concern about the Spartans hook doesn't appear to be fully resolved yet, so if a bump isn't an option, maybe it needs to be pulled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narutolovehinata5 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This hook has been promoted to Prep 7 (June 10), and while it's about a track athlete rather than American football, I am mentioning it here since it's sports-related and the hook is about her being an "All-Big Ten athlete", so the concern is similar to the Michigan State Spartans hook. Should the hook be rephrased to clarify what being an "All-Big Ten athlete" means, or should the wording stand as is? I've linked to Big Ten Conference in the hook just to be sure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Problematic references in multiple DYK nominations by same nominator
Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I am reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gnoli and finding many footnotes that do not source what they are claimed to source and a nominator who appears befuddled by my assertions that this is a problem. The same nominator is also a nominator of two other active nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Livia Accarigi (not yet under review) and Template:Did you know nominations/Miwa Kai (under review by User:TheBritinator). A brief investigation finds similar issues in Miwa Kai (e.g. source for birth date gives only the year, not the date) and Accarigi ("An abbot named Pasquini frequented the Accarigi house and pushed her to present her works to the public" does not match anything in its source). Perhaps a deeper investigation is needed? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I examined this nominator’s Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Olenina-d'Alheim for promotion and found several missing citations that should have been present. I did not check to see if the cited content backs up the sourcing. (This nominator did not include page numbers for the specific cited material, and the pages most likely to back up the material were not visible to me in Google Books so I did not promote.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
In 1887, her family moved to Saint Petersburg. She began to study music under Yuliya Platonova, a proponent of the new Russian school of music.Source does not validate any claims: her family moving to St Petersburg in 1887, nor that Platonova was Olenina's teacher, nor that Platonova was a proponent of the new Russian school.
She was also related to Anna Olenina, a writer who courted Alexander Pushkin.Source says Pushkin courted Anna Olenina, not the other way 'round, and makes no mention of Anna Olenina being related to Maria Olenina.
While touring in France, she met the French writer and music critic Baron Pierre d'Alheim (1862–1922) who had written a monograph on Mussorgsky in 1896, and the two married in 1898.Source validates his birth year and that he wrote a monograph on Mussorgsky. It does not validate his death date, that Olenina met him while touring in France, or the date of their marriage.
She was persuaded to write a memoir of her life in the 1940s. She began working on her autobiography, titled Dreams and Recollections, in 1948, which later served as a prominent source for Tumanov's authoritative book on her life and work.One source says nothing about any of this. The other validates that she had a memoir (called "Dreams and Reminiscences"), but nothing about being persuaded to write it or the timing in the 1940s.
Spotchecking this source via TWL, I found a significant passage of WP:CLOP. (This does not come up in Earwig's Copyvio Detector because of the paywall.) Compare:
Article:Maria Alexeyevna Olenina was born in 1869 at her family's Istomino estate near the town of Kasimov in the Ryazan Governorate of the Russian Empire. She was born into the Russian nobility as the younger daughter of Alexei Petrovich Olenin, a pianist and composer, and Varvara Alexandrovna Bakunina. Her brother Alexander Olenin (1861–1944) became a composer of over a dozen works. Her father was appointed director of the Stroganov Art School in Moscow in 1882. As a girl, she suffered from poor eyesight, heightening her hearing and musical memory. Brought up in the countryside of central Russia, she was strongly influenced by Russian folk music. She was exposed to byliny (epic ballads) sung by peasant farmers about legendary figures like Dobrynya Nikitich and Alyosha Popovich. Olenina-d'Alheim descended from multiple notable Russian artists and officials. Her grandfather, Pyotr Olenin (1794–1868), was a painter and major general, and her great grandfather Alexey Olenin was an archaeologist who presided over the Imperial Academy of Arts from 1817 to 1843. She was also related to Anna Olenina, a writer who courted Alexander Pushkin. In 1887, her family moved to Saint Petersburg. She began to study music under Yuliya Platonova, a proponent of the new Russian school of music. Impressed by Olenina's gifts, Platonova recommended her to Mily Balakirev and Vladimir Stasov. That winter, they invited her to perform at Balakirev's house. There, she met the "Mighty Handful" of composers, including Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, César Cui, Anatoly Lyadov, Alexander Glazunov, and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, who reacted with enormous enthusiasm to her singing.
Source:Born in Russia on 19 September (1 October, New Style) 1869 on the family estate of Istomino in the province of Ryazan, Maria Alexeyevna Olenina came from a cultivated, highly intelligent family. The Olenin household was renowned for its artistic gatherings, at which, in former years, Mikhail Glinka's songs and romances had been performed and Aleksandr Pushkin had recited his verses. From birth Olenina had poor eyesight, but this heightened her hearing and musical memory. Brought up in the country, she heard firsthand byliny (epic ballads) about characters like Dobrynya Nikitich and Alyosha Popovich, the idiosyncratic singing of the peasant performers making a strong impression upon her. In 1887 her family moved to St. Petersburg, where she was introduced to the activities and music of the members of the Mighty Handful and subsequently had personal meetings with Mily Alexeyevich Balakirev and Vladimir Stasov. In the capital, she took lessons with Yulia Platonova, a keen supporter of the music of the "new Russian school," and particularly that of Mussorgsky. Impressed by her pupil's exceptional musical gifts, Platonova spoke warmly of her talents to Balakirev and Stasov, and as a result of these recommendations, Olenina was invited to perform in the winter of 1887 at a musical gathering at Balakirev's house in honor of Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Nearly all the great Russian composers attended--including Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov, Alexander Glazunov, and other members of the nationalist school--and Olenina's performance was received with the greatest enthusiasm.
I didn't do further review for CLOP and I didn't check any additional sources. But I will be pulling the approval on the Maria Olenina nomination at this time given the numerous source/text integrity issues. RabidTuberculosis, I see you have been active on the project since TheBritinator pinged you to this discussion. I strongly recommend you address the concerns @David Eppstein and I have raised here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello all, I'll attempt to answer each question below. First, I want to reiterate that I genuinely appreciate thorough review, as this is the first time in my last eight months of active contribution to Wikipedia that I've received detailed criticism. I'm also new to DYK, having been invited to submit my first article 2 months ago, after which I've had 2 articles published on the front page. I particularly enjoy creating biographies using foreign language sources, which can be painstaking. For past articles where information from old literary sources was scattered, my strategy was to first write a draft that pieces together a general biographic skeleton, a second pass to contextualize and grade the fidelity of detailed information and add the color, and finally to return to each of (often dozens) of sources to add as references to lines that draw mostly, or exclusively, to that source. However, after reviewers of such articles communicated a sense of unease that details, which may be found in the body of sources but not in particular references, were not always immediately and clearly attributable, I've been significantly more precise in adding references which completely cover any information in any given sentence (see, for example, Giorgio Valensin). I am more than happy to make edits to past articles to bring them in line with standards, or to make any desired changes.
For Template:Did you know nominations/Miwa Kai, the exact birth date comes from an archival Japanese-language source (now added), but I had preferred an English source as reference (which only corroborated year). I've added the former and will be less reticent to cite foreign sources on English articles.
For Template:Did you know nominations/Livia Accarigi, the sentence about "abbot Pasquini" is derived from the source referenced immediately before that line. Since the rest of the line regards his having encouraged Accarigi to perform in public, I added a reference recounting her public performances. For completeness, I've added the earlier reference to this line as well. In the future, I will be less reticent in repeating sources or appending multiple to a single line.
For Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gnoli, the crux is that I sourced most intimate details about her life from the Raffaella di Castro source, but rather than link the source excessively, I link it for sentences or paragraphs for which it is the sole source. When it is bolstered by other sources, I put those, even if further color is from the di Castro source, which I assume the reader has already seen. That said, every statement is sourced from the general body of references taken from literature about the subject. I will note that most of the articles on women literary figures that I used as a template cite broadly rather than fastidiously at each line. However, if in-line references need to be redone so that every sentence cites each of (potentially multiple) sources, I'm happy to take this on.
Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Olenina-d'Alheim, same as for Gnoli; many lines use a reference that is most related to one of its claims, with the understanding that earlier sources (especially major ones like Tumanov, which appear earlier in the article) which account for the rest are known to the reader. That said, the Tumanov source is the most comprehensive, and I didn't realize each was referencing the same page number (will fix). Some of the review comments seem semantic (re: courtship), but the largest issue seems to regard WP:CLOP of the Seaman source. I've read the page in detail, and I believe I've adequately paraphrased the landmark facts from Seaman (birth, kinship, education, association) without using any of the same wording, and WP:LIMITED applies to multiple facts and dates. If I can improve the sourcing, or if I've gravely misunderstood how sources can be used, please inform me. Otherwise, short of omitting information for which Seaman is the sole source, I believe I've maximally altered content without WP:NOCREATIVE or WP:SYNTH and substantiated information, where possible, with other sources.
Your explanation on Olenina does not explain how so many citations don't cover the material in the text they are used to support. As for close paraphrasing, there's more I found in Seaman. Compare:
Source:The following decades of her life were marred by ever-increasing material problems, largely brought about by her pride and her uncompromising support for the Soviet regime, which earned her little sympathy from fellow Russian émigrés.Article:Although she had inherited a sizable estate from her husband's noble estate, she began to experience financial difficulties, due in part to pride and her uncompromising support for the Soviet government, which earned her a measure of scorn from fellow Russian émigrés.
Source:In the 1940s she was persuaded to write her memoirs, and in 1948 she started work on her autobiography, Dream and Recollections, one of the main sources of Tumanov's book.Article:She was persuaded to write a memoir of her life in the 1940s. She began working on her autobiography, titled Dreams and Recollections, in 1948, which later served as a prominent source for Tumanov's authoritative book on her life and work.
Source:in 1959, nearly ninety years old, she was finally able to obtain long-sought permission to return to Moscow.Article:In 1959, at nearly the age of 90, she was granted long-sought permission to return to her homeland by the government of the Soviet Union.
This is clear superficial modification of material from another source, our definition of close paraphrasing. The sentence structures are mostly identical, the order of explanation and emphasis overlap, and some phrases are lifted verbatim ("pride and her uncompromising support", "long-sought permission to return"). And you cited these closely paraphased sentences with sources that aren't the Seaman review and in some cases don't support this text. Moreover, the goal is not "maximally alter[ing] content"; it's writing it in your own words and using your own summary of all the source material. I would invite any of our copyright experts who frequent this board to weigh in here to be sure I'm not off base on this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Juxlos @Silverseren @Dclemens1971 "Arrested" and "detained" aren't necessarily the same thing and I'm unable to access p. 243 of the book. I just changed the hook to say "detained" so that it matches what it says in the article, but either way, could you please share the relevant passage from the source so that it's clear? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's from a note at the bottom of the page: "Shortly afterward, while on a visit to Surabaja, he was arrested by Mustopo; after his release he lost what little importance he had previously enjoyed." Juxlos (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Juxlos. I've added the word "arrested" to the article and changed the hook back. Could you also please provide the passage on p. 243 that verifies the rest of the hook claim (the "proceeded to claim his title" part)? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure. Continued from the previous quote, actually:
"[...] had previously enjoyed. Following the arrest Mustopo proclaimed himself minister, but he was later persuaded to drop his claim."
I have a quibble with the rather curtailed form of that hook. I feel it would be much more interesting if it were to mention the weird fact of Voiculescu being an esotericist, aside from Ceaușescu's gavedigger. The nom was approved and closed rather quickly, without pinging me as the creator/nominator, and I hope I can persuade you guys that the mention makes for a better hook; as does the link on Ceaușescu. I understand the esotericist tidbit was verified by Launchballer(talk·contribs), but removed from the revised hook -- meaning that it can be readded. Therefore, please consider changing the hook to this:
@Dahn @Launchballer @SL93 Added the word "esotericist" per above request. Didn't add the second blue link as everyone will ignore the boldlink and click on that article instead; the link to Ceaușescu is available within the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't recall saying I'd checked that word, and I mentioned on my talk page (I added a hatnote) that "esotericist" is fairly obscure.--Launchballer22:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't recall you saying it was unverified, just that you pteferred a hook that you created yourself. I believe you will find that it is a basic fact, verified by at least one quotation I provided in full.
The rest of your comment shows why it is best not to make judgement calls about what goes into the hook without some discussion. The word "esotericist" is somewhat obscure, granted, but it would be aimed at a specific demographic of readers: those interested in esoterica (several million worldwide, I would wager -- probably less than people who click for trans porn stars, included in the same prep, but not at all minuscule, as is implied); taken together with people curious about Romania and the fate of Ceaușescu (also a major demographic in educated circles), as well as with all the people who will be drawn in by the sheer weirdness, I see it as only adding to the appeal and quality of the hook.
Either way: I will object to the arbitrary and non-transparent manner in which my hooks are sometimes censored, and to the implication that I have no idea what is interesting (whereas another fellow editor has an objective vantage point and can mentor me from it). Dahn (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'm allowed to trim extraneous clauses per WP:DYKTRIM (the hook was made of nothing that wasn't in the original), and WP:DYKINT demands that the hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest and not just by a "specific demographic".--Launchballer00:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are allowed, I suppose, but not by default and with no semblance of a discussion. That said: all hooks, including those for LGBT porn, obscure pop groups, American footballers etc rely on hooking demographics -- they get more views by drawing in more demographics. In this case, I have clearly said (here, as I had no chance to respond on the nom page) that people interested in esoterica are one of three or four demographics that the hook draws in. Or are you seriously proposing that, in a world where The Da Vinci Code outsold all books and Candace Owens' musings (inept as they may be) about mystical topics draw in tens of millions, the subject of esoterica is below the intersections presumed by trans erotica? Dahn (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Let me use "whittled down", then. The rest of my comment can be read with or without that selected word. Either way: I did not like it; and I would have viewed it as a mere preference (while gently informing my fellow editor that preferences should not be used in whittling down hooks without proper notification), except now I hear suggestions that the plain fact, for which I had bothered supplying ample quotations, was removed because it may be unverified (nothing of this sort was ever stated in the nearly 1-month when the nom stood and waited for a review, nor in the two-second interval in which it was approved, closed, and moved to the prep). Dahn (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Launchballer's right, though. In a short hook, labeling the subject an "esotericist" doesn't add anything to the understanding of the hook or the interest. (I know we all think we know best about our own hooks, and I've certainly felt salty a time or two when my hooks got trimmed or edited, but the content writers are often too close to the material to see how it lands with a non-expert third party.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Let's highlight the point: if I told you that a person who killed a communist dictator believes in wizardry, would you fond that tidbit interesting? Would adding that draw your interest more than merely being told that said person killed said other person? Dahn (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would think it was rather random and a distraction from the main point, unless the wizardry somehow had to do with how he killed the dictator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
And I would think that is a whimsical claim made to defend the whimsical decision. Especially since Voiculescu's esoteric connections have been repeatedly covered as bewildering by Western authors, including in direct connection to his role in the Ceaușescu "trial" (see for instance, in the article, the passage about garlic, sourced to French academia, or the citations to Ferenc Fejtő). Dahn (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm okay with the word being kept, but this is making a mole out of a molehill. It's not a big deal if him being an esotericist is mentioned or not. Descriptors should be mentioned on a case-by-case basis and generally if they add important context as to who they are and how they connect to the hook fact. DYKTRIM allows us to remove parts that are ultimately unnecessary, and given how that the primary fact here is his pride in securing the death sentence and not who he was, it's debatable what him being such even adds to the hook. I am also confused as to why you are saying we are "censoring" the term just because it's "obscure". We are not. We are simply making a judgment call on whether or not the word is necessary. That's different.
In any case, despite me personally being ambivalent about the word (leaning towards keeping it), as a compromise, I've modified to the hook to read:
This way, it treats him being an esotericist as being a hook fact itself, and also links to the term for those unfamiliar with it. I note that there are multiple editors who oppose the word being mentioned at all, so I wouldn't oppose a removal at this point either if consensus leans that way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to how the word was removed, the hook was unilaterally changed by the reviwer, and then immediately moved to prep (with no notification, btw). The emphasis was not on the content being censored, but on the process being equivalent to me submitting a nom and then seeing a fellow editor deciding that "we will only run it with this wording". Not that the efitor was cutting the word because they actually wanted it hidden, but because I had no chance to say "hold up", or "let's try this then". They acted as a censor, regardless of whether or not the intent was to censor.
I am being charitable when I say "esotericist" is obscure, btw. If we have to go into this: no, it is not obscure at all. Many more people have at least some understanding of what it means than there are people who care about trans erotica and Olivia Rodrigo's latest single. Of those people, many if not all will immediately understand the wow factor of an esotericist actually being involved in the execution of a communist leader -- the only leader who ever lost his life in that manner, in that timeline, in that region, and in circumstances that captivated the entire world for a couple of weeks.
And yes, I would have formulated other, juicier hooks (for instance, readding another fact removed by the reviewer: that the esotericist in question actually buried Ceaușescu). But I was never given a chance to propose such options, and woke up to the most vanilla hook I could have imagined from all that utterly grotesque episode. No, I do not accept that I am incapable of seeing the wow factor in the story; I frankly think it was the other way around: the story had juice and the reviewer missed it. Which is a perfectly innocent mistake to make, but a mistake it still is -- let's not have the groupthink whereby "quasi-magician kills and buries dictator" is now "distracting" us from the mere banality of a kangaroo trial that has been explored from all other angles. Dahn (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
If I may ask: are you interested in esotericism, and that is why you are attached to the word and thus are disappointed it was removed? To us uninvolved editors, the word genuinely doesn't seem like a big deal, and the hook fact doesn't really change in interest whether or not it is mentioned. In fact, I imagine that with the original wording, most readers would even skim through that word and instead find the "pride in executing" point more eye-catchy.
Regarding your second point, this is actually a recurring issue on DYK where the nominators often are too attached to their nominations or hooks and don't know what outsiders would think. This is why it's often important to have uninvolved or outsider editors reviewing, because they serve a check-and-balance function. It's similar to how some nominators' preferred hooks are less interesting to nonspecialist readers or reviewers, and vice-versa. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not at all interested in esotericism (short of knowing the basics about it), and it makes little sense to even ask me that, since I have framed all of this in objective terms: "an esotericist went in to kill a communist dictator" is objectively more interesting than "a guy went in to kill a communist dictator". I will repeat that I know this to be the case because sources from across Europe who have bothered covering Voican's career were all perplexed by the esoteric angle -- if a Western magazine covered him in three words, one of those three was "esotericist" or a synomym of it.
And again: I would have made the hook even more interesting by mentioning the burial fact (which was also tacitly removed from the hook I proposed, similarly argued as "not interesting" -- seriously? it is not interesting to you that this fella personally buried Ceaușescu? is that a banal fact when weighed against how Olivia Rodrigo promotes her stupid songs?). Once the hook was stripped down into this boring version, I thought "at least let's have the esotericist thing in", and now we pretend like this reflects my personal interest in esoterica.
A Ceaușescu-execution video on YT gathers millions of views from across the globe (in fact, there seems to be a similar surge of interest in anything Ceaușescu-related: I watched a recent video by some nice British guy who covered the obscurities of foitball in Ceaușescu's Romania, and there were hundreds of thousands of views). In tandem, an esoteric-content video gets tens of millions (type in "Freemasonry", "spiritual war", "ancient aliens" or other such esoteric topic). I am obviously not hoping to get that many views, but surely you can notice the objective criterion that would push me to want the juxtaposition present in the hook, and then why arguments that begin with "to us" ("us five wikipedia editors who are thinking about this for the first time just now, and who begin from a defensive position") are not that important in assessing potential interest. Dahn (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's probably more to do with how you reacted to what happened than anything. For other editors, they would state they are unhappy with the new hook wording and see what you could be done. Your response was instead to question good faith editors, bizarrely bring up the idea of censorship (even if the idea was later pushed back), and seemingly not being open to compromise (i.e. being closed to the idea of the word being removed at all). This is coupled with the apparent attachment to the term, despite other editors noting that external views are more important than the nominator's due to being more detached and thus being more objective on whether or not the term is necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You can look more thoroughly into how I reacted: I contacted Lauchballer on their talk page with a polite suggestion (after the nom had been rapidly closed), and was told to take it here; as per my original comment here, I made a minor suggestion that was actually a compromise version. They responded here by sticking to the (rather absurd by now) notion that the hook is uninteresting, and further implying that it is unverified in this form. And it seems like all that came after was groupthink: "the esteemed colleague must've been right, now let's come up with a rationalization of that".
For the record: I emphatically am not giving in to "push-back" on the "bizarre" censorship "claim": I was referring to an editor's claim that they can strip down hooks without discussion, which is them positioning themselves as a censor. It is that definition that I was using -- though obviously it was cherrypicked to make it seem like a personal attack and to hopefully dilute my salient point. Which is rather annoying.
I do not think that this is how these things should be dealt with. And I should have to be able to criticize this sort of entrenchment, and suggest/demand self-examination, without having the tables turned on me. Thanks. Dahn (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also: "external views" and "let's be more detached" should not mean "listen to these three other wikipedians". I decided that esotericist was interesting enough for the hook because it was mentioned ad nauseam in sources, including some entirely outside Romania. That is what counts as an external view (subject-wise), and it does not become my internal view (or invite in wink-wink suggestions about how this is in fact about my own lurid interest in esotericism) just because I had a glimpse at the subject for two minutes more than editors who have never assessed that sort of metric. As an aside: there are some 50 members of something called WikiProject Occult -- with which I myself have no sort of incolvement. Maybe you can ask them if "esotericist" makes the hooked article more interesting, and then extrapolate their answer and its contextual weight to the real world. You know, rather than asking the same few editors if they agree on deciding in closed-quarters what is/isn't ultimately interesting to the entire world, and rather than declaring that minuscule input to be "external views". Dahn (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @DYK admins:, I think it's time to go into WP:DYKUBM. As I've stated above though, we need to be mindful to not let unapproved nominations get to low. I'd suggest ending DYKUBM at around 100 unapproved nominations. TarnishedPathtalk04:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The previous list was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 6. We have a total of 346 nominations, of which 131 have been approved, a gap of 215 nominations that has increased in size by 1 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 03:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Panamitsu, Crisco 1492 – I've bumped this hook to a later prep to give some time to address:
In the "Relationship" section, Morcom also pulled pranks on Turing... is unsourced and appears to be duplicate content from the "Sense of humor" section
In the "Health and death" section, the second paragraph is unsourced
There is a failed verification tag in the "Effect of Morcom's death on Alan Turing" section
Yeah someone's been expanding the article a bit since I made the nomination. My apologies for not cleaning it up, I'll work on it in a few hours. Panamitsu✨03:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 hours ago7 comments4 people in discussion
@Jolielover, Dclemens1971, Lajmmoore, re this hook. There seems to be a mismatch between the article, the source, and the hook:
Source: At this point Qojin was about 23 – older for a Mongol bride – and Jochi perhaps 21
Article: Qojin was around 23 years old when this proposal occurred, making her older than usual for a bride of the time period.
Hook: ... that Genghis Khan's daughter Qojin was considered old for marriage at 23 years old?
The source mentions "Mongol bride" and not a specific time period. The hook is more certain about her age than the article or source, and the phrase "was considered old" implies it's a specific judgement about Qojin rather than a general statement about Mongol society. Maybe something like: ... that Genghis Khan's daughter Qojin got married at 23, older than usual for a Mongol woman?Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 03:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the hook aligns well with the text. It's not making a judgment about Qojin, just saying that she would have been considered old for marriage based on her age, which is exactly what the source and article say. In short, I'm not seeing your mismatch. Your revision seems to say the same thing as what's already there; it's not really an improvement but it's also not wrong, so I guess make the change if you think it's best. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Vermont asked me to take a look, as I'm showing them the ropes – to me, there are two problems. The first is overuse of attribution – the hook says "was considered", which the source and article don't. The second is specificity of age – the source and article say she was approximately 23, while the hook just says she was 23. For those reasons, I think the proposed change is probably a good idea. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Re: considered old, noted, makes sense. I do think that bride of the time period and Mongol bride are a mismatch – thoughts on changing the article text to older than usual for a Mongol woman? Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 03:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure; I just wanted to double-check with the more sports-knowledgeable people and see if there was a better alternative. It's not a huge deal, though. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Even if it were unreliable, I don't see the reason to question an issue not related to the DYK. What's exactly controvesial about "The CONCACAF (Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football) Gold Cup is a major association football tournament in the Americas"? Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 17:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, that rule is not actually as strict as it says. The rule also says: All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited to a reliable source no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). It theoretically allows for some exceptions of less-reliable sources as long as it's not contentious or non-BLP material, as well as the other limited exemptions said at WP:SPS. It would be a red flag if the article used too many of them or if they were used to cite controversial info. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great, I've swapped in TarnishedPath's hook with a copyedit. I'd support trimming it a bit, but I think your suggestion takes it a little too far. Feel free to workshop it in prep, though — it's now in prep 5. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is Bird ringing has been an important part of the activity at Ottenby Bird Observatory since the start, and since 1972 it has been carried out in a standardised way. The data sets going back to 1946 constitute the longest unbroken series of systematic bird observations in the world not clear enough to explain the Ottenby Bird Observatory has done continuous bird observations for 80 years? The article makes clear that this observatory is (1) doing bird observations (2) has done them continuously (3) for 80 years (since 1946, no citation for this needed per WP:CALC) -- the three elements of the hook are all there in the article and the previous sentence provides context for what the observations are and how they are done. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This was my view as well as I was checking this set for queuing. There's a little work needed to tease out the hook fact, but it's perfectly verifiable and should be clear on a full read of the article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The source is from 2017. 2017 - 1946 = 71. That is 71 years. A source is needed to confirm that they continued bird observations uninterrupted through 2026. Was there any interruption in the interim, for example during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden? Another source is needed to back up the hook claim and it seems worth explaining either way. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great thanks @SL93. Can we add these sources to the article or add an endnote explaining this? It just seems a bit underexplained and we could easily end up having this discussion all over again on the day at WP:ERRORS. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This hook was not my choice, but I don't have any objections to the course of action suggested above. This Swedish-language source from the obersvatory itself also confirms ring marking is ongoing and uninterrupted. If you want to make life easier for yourselves, you could also just rephrase the hook to say 70 instead of 80 years, as everyone seems to agree that this claim is already covered by current sources. Perhaps the average reader won't find it significantly less interesting... Yakikaki (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Epicgenius, Crisco 1492, Dclemens1971, and Vermont: Doing some rechecks working with Vermont on this queue, and I don't think this hook verifies. The source says that Morrow let four different architects build something on the land, ultimately leading to the "invasion of modernity", but I don't see where it says that she invited that invasion of modernity itself; it was probably just mainly a business venture for her. (It's also unclear whether it was her estate after or whether the land was outright sold.) Also, this source is an old and fairly slanted piece and I wouldn't use "invasion" unattributed in the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 hours ago9 comments7 people in discussion
Back in February, GreenLipstickLesbian and Z1720proposed 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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 2 hours ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Starting the checks for Queue 5. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor can check the picture hook on the Mount Zion COGIC since I promoted that one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me. Surprised the hook doesn't use the word 'river', but I suppose it's interesting enough that something as mundane as a baptism could draw that much attention?--Launchballer20:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@TonyTheTiger, AirshipJungleman29, and RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: I hate to bring this here when this hook's long saga is almost at the finish line, but I... simply cannot see where in the sources it reports the hook claim exactly, particularly the part about immediately returning. The article says: On March 16, he held a press conference in Corvallis, Oregon, to meet the local press as after agreeing to a five-year contract worth $4.85 million.
Joyner remained with Michigan through the 2026 NCAA tournament, although there was an urgency at Oregon State to "retain players, to build a staff, and to prepare for the transfer portal." He formally began as head coach on the day after Michigan's tournament ended. The SI article reports on the press conference, and the MLive article says he will remain on Michigan's coaching staff for the big 10 tournament, and the Oregonian article is also prospective, saying he will join Oregon State after Michigan's tournament. I don't see anything in the article or the sources about an immediate return following the press conference, and there is a source/text integrity issue with the passage that is closest to the hook. I really do not want to pull this at this late stage given this hook's lengthy journey, so I'll leave it for a day for a tuneup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jon698, Miminity, and RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: Is Tim Hodge a reliable source for this claim? He appears to be a local genealogist whose lecture was reprinted in the local paper. We don't usually consider self-published genealogy research as reliable, and I doubt the newspaper did fact-checking when it reprinted this lecture text. Is there a reason to consider this a reliable source? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I looked into Hodge some more and he does hold a doctorate 1. Hodge is only used as a source for one brief sentence so if it is a major issue we can remove it or replace the reference. Jon698 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will be on my computer in about one hour or so and then I can look at the other sources in the page for possible replacement. Jon698 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Looks like Hodge is used for five citations including the hook sentence so if it's not a good source we need to replace it. I would question whether a Ph.D. in Creative Leadership for Innovation and Change from UVI qualifies one as an expert in historical research. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@PlatypeanArchcow, GRuban, and SL93: The hooks appear to be sourced to Baranschikov's own travelogue yet are stated in wikivoice as facts. I'd also like to see quotations translated into English in the DYK; I can't read Russian to verify, but the claims edge sufficiently toward fanciful that I don't trust a first-person 18th-century account for them. (It's also unclear what a "feat of gluttony" is.) ALT2 is probably on the firmest footing but I can't tell if it was approved by the reviewer. Finally, there are several unsourced sentences throughout that need to be cited ASAP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Launchballer: ooh, good note. To try and maximize time between them, we could keep The Cure (goes up in ~2 hours) and maybe move Begged back a bit? Could swap it for something in prep 1 or 3. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 22:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh wait I think I misunderstood the intent here. Is the goal to not have similar hooks in short succession, or to time these to be relevant for when the album drops? (very much still learning the ropes here:>) If the latter, we could move both to prep 3, to not mess with the Philippines set and come out the day after the album is released. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 22:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Launchballer, I hadn't gotten that far in the queue checks, but I was planning to do a swap once I got there. @Vermont, on very specific niches we should space out the hooks by at least five days and preferably a week. We don't generally time hooks for commercial occasions like album releases per WP:DYKSO. (As an example of another spacing that needs to happen, I am planning to move the image hook in Prep 1 so we don't have Canadian church-related hooks in the image slot twice in three days.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Rodrigo is actually half-Filipino and is open about her identity, so had we had more time, we actually could have possibly run something related to her on June 12. The issue is that the connection probably would have been tangential, but it's a bit embarrassing that I didn't think of this earlier.
To answer Vermont's question: ideally we don't like running hooks about very similar topics too close to each other, unless we just have too many hooks about them or if the topics are broad enough. There's a reason why Jilly Cooper is famous within DYK circles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
(ec) The issue with Rodrigo is she has a new album out that day, although as Gwen needs its AfD to resolve and Hingotanan and Silver have other problems and we have seven hooks in that set, I might parachute in Begged and the elections hook if none of the others resolve in time. (The set's clearly not intended to promote her.)--Launchballer23:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Tbhotch, CoryGlee, and SL93: As Cory noted in the review, the source cited for the hook fact doesn't actually say diners eat under the 200-year-old tree, just that it's the restaurant's centerpiece. Another source not adjacent to the hook fact in the article does support the "dining under" claim but only says "centuries-old". Cory's source says The large, unique oak is within walking distance of the restaurant’s outdoor dining area (machine translation), which doesn't sound like something that is dined under, and it also describes it as a 100-year-old tree. The sourcing, article text and hook fact need to be aligned here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Of course that a tree age will vary, no one can determine the age of a tree without cutting it. And the San Diego Union Tribune is a source from 2018, another outdated source. Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 00:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The tree surely did not age 100 years in 7 years. If there are competing sources we should not be using that claim. I'll be bumping this hook off for further discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not providing alternatives simply because an user, arbitrarily, decided to give undue weight to outdated sources, First, you claimed "the source says it is not under the tree, but near it", citing a source discussing the first inception of the pop-up restaurant (i.e, a temporary restaurant) that lead to the current establishment, then you made it about an inconsistency created by sources published almost ten years ago (WP:AGE MATTERS). Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 01:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I simply looked at the sources in the article and the source supplied by CoryGlee. The source you placed next to the hook in the article didn't mention the location of the diners relative to the tree. The source Cory supplied said the age of the tree was 100 years. There are now multiple sources that disagree about the age of the tree, which was the root (so to speak) of the hook's interest and thus can't be used. But if you don't want to workshop alternatives, I'll go ahead and pull from prep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Dclemens1971 I was going to suggest ... that diners at Animalón may eat under an old oak tree? I thought about it more and I'm not sure that the hook is interesting. I don't think doing things underneath a tree, no matter how old the tree is (and many trees can become very old), is interesting. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dahn, Launchballer, and SL93: I can't say I understand what this hook is supposed to be saying -- that the TV viewing tastes of the Romanian intelligentsia do not overlap with belly dancing? The hook seems to imply that this somehow represents a degeneration in quality but I don't see that supported by the sources, and without that angle on the evolution of programming this strikes me as simply a recitation of two disparate facts and not meeting WP:DYKINT. Thoughts? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My thinking was that one was much more stereotypically highbrow rather than necessarily higher quality, although I suppose that might be putting two and two together to make five. There's ALT1 (although maybe leave out 'overweight'), but do you have another suggestion?--Launchballer23:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Nighfidelity, Morogris, and SL93: I don't see the hook's claims supported by the source. The TIME article indicates Carlisle's company was the largest shareholder in United, but only owned approximately 15% of the company; that would not customarily be enough to say Carlisle owned United. The TIME article also doesn't say that United did control a quarter of U.S. utilities but that this level of control was alleged by SEC investigator Pecora. If it's going to be in the hook, it needs to be attributed, not stated in wikivoice. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Dclemens1971 ... that Floyd L. Carlisle co-owned a company, that at one point, allegedly controlled about a quarter of all American utility? I did think that Pecora stating such a thing would be no different than a reliable source stating it. When a subject matter expert says something that they consider to be a fact, editors typically do not say that is an alleged fact. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done 
Pulled for copyright cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)