Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 210

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 205

←

Archive 208

Archive 209

Archive 210

I am seeing some recent backlash against "first hooks" leading to WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP at review. One recent example is Template:Did you know nominations/Jocelyn Borgella where it was suggested by Narutolovehinata5 that a first hook shouldn't be used even when there were tons of reliable sources verifying the hook fact. This seemed entirely inappropriate given the evidence. While I don't doubt that we have had issues with some assertions of "first achievements" in past hook proposals (a minority of them in my estimate), we could also find many examples of first achievements highlighted at DYK which were successful. I think we need to be careful here not to take a personal bias against "first achievement" hooks into review, and look at each case impartially on its own. Some first achievements are extremely well documented and supported by multiple reliable sources (ie nobody could argue with ...did you know that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America?). Others don't have that type of evidentiary support. I would suggest that we follow WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require hooks of this type be supported by multiple sources. This would seem a reasonable and policy based way to ensure these types of hooks won't end up at WP:ERRORS. This is already suggested at WP:DYKCITE but we could state there more explicitly that "first achievement" claims must have multiple reliable sources supporting the claim. That said, I don't think we should be dissuading nominators from actively proposing these hooks because they often do make great hooks when there is evidence backing up the claim. Nor should we be requiring other kinds of hook proposals when they aren't needed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

we could state there more explicitly that "first achievement" claims must have multiple reliable sources supporting the claim We sort of do that already at WP:DYKHOOK.--Launchballer 15:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer Good point. The guidelines talk around these ideas without outright highlighting what nominating/reviewing editors should be doing. I think we could outright have a sentence on hooks with "extraordinary claims", such as first achievement claims, needing multiple pieces of evidence. This would let nominating editors know they need to provide multiple sources supporting the hook claim when first proposing the hook fact in the template. That's why I am suggesting a more explicitly stated guideline for this type of hook as this appears to be a repeating point of contention. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

We need to try to make sure our hooks are not just supported by reliable sources, but actually true. "First" statements often lack some important context even in high quality reliable sources. For a made up example, I am sure you can find hundreds of sources that say "Margaret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister" without further qualification even if that is wrong (compare Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir for earlier examples): she was the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The same thing happens far more often with less high profile "firsts"; very often someone is the first person in the United States to achieve X, not the first person worldwide.

The answer in my view is to find sources that are not investigating the person named as "first" in the hook, but focusing on the whatever they were first in. Instead of using a biography of George Washington to show that he was the first POTUS, use a source listing all of them, which makes it clear what the context is in which he was the first.

Do not ever use local newspapers as sources for global "first" claims unless you are making a very local statement. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

We need to try to make sure our hooks are not just supported by reliable sources, but actually true. Meh, I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the core guiding light of wikipedia editing because of WP:No original research being a foundational policy and our rules around editing without editorial review. We report what is in RS, and if multiple pieces of RS are saying something we can say it. It shouldn't get more complicated than that in most cases because those are our guidelines. Going at it from the angle of truth not verifiability (which is WP:OR) is frankly not workable without an editorial board which doesn't exist on wikipedia. That said, where there are contradictions in reliable materials or multiple competing claims, or other good evidence based reasons to doubt truthfulness I am not advocating that we ignore those. I just don't think that we must have sources directly studying a specific issue to support a claim. A biography of George Washington stating he was the first president of the United States is a suitable source for that claim, even if it doesn't contain a list of every United States president.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the issue of local papers making "first" claims is a question of verifiability vs. truth; it's a question of subject-matter reliability, like in medicine. We give a presumption to institutions with editorial staff and fact-checking that the information they produce is reliable, but that presumption can be rebutted if they consistently fail to catch mistakes. The New York Post has an editorial board, rag that it is, and so do most local papers. Local papers do fine for a lot of things, but they just do not have the institutional ability or incentive to debunk a broad 'first' claim about a hometown hero, and so they screw this particular thing up. A lot. So, the presumption that local papers are reliable does not apply to 'first' claims, the same way it doesn't for biomedical claims. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The Main Page isn't an encyclopaedia article, it is more like a magazine. We (the DYK community) are the editorial board of one section of that magazine. The least we can do is try to fact check the claims that we are presenting to thousands and thousands of readers. —Kusma (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron:Could be. I think again that this emphasizes the need for multiple sources that are clearly independent from one another which would align with the language at verifiability. If the concern is only coverage in a single local paper; requiring multiple sources (ie different publications not in the same newspaper/publication by different named authors) goes a long way in solving the problem. I get it that some claims get repeated, but we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think we would need some hard concrete evidence proving its not true or likely not true once multiple RS has verified its true. That's how wikipedia is set up, and we shouldn't divert from that. Some of the issues I see here are editors relying on speculative claims that the reporter and its paper didn't have due diligence. If that isn't based on anything tangible I don't think we should accept it as reality.4meter4 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma I'm not against fact checking. If there is hard material evidence proving a claim isn't true or likely not true we shouldn't run it. The problem I see is that editors are questioning first achievement claims without any evidence suggesting that the claim isn't true. That isn't fact checking, but speculative discourse.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

As leeky says above, the issue is subject-matter reliability. Newspapers are good sources for the fact that something happened in some place a given day, but not necessary for the more extraordinary claim that the same thing did not happen on any of the previous days in history in any other place on Earth. But that is what a "first" claim is, so we need a source that is reliable on that subject matter. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is where multiple sources by different authors comes into play both in terms of improving the chances of reliability, and in terms of establishing a mainstream POV. When a fact gets repeated in multiple places by different authors it becomes a mainstream view which is addressed at WP:EXCEPTIONAL. So again, the best policy based way is to approach this is to require extraordinary claims to be verified to multiple sources.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Multiple sources reliable on the subject matter, not multiple sources happy to reprint the same flashy headline. —Kusma (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Source reliability can be subjective in these cases. I would say it depends on the publication, and the author, and the claim being made. And that is something that we really can’t address any differently than what is currently in the guideline as it is very context dependent. Where we can improve in the language at DYKCRIT is strengthening our sourcing requirements for exceptional claims. I would think everyone participating here could agree on mandating the need for multiple RS on these types of hooks would be an improvement.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That is exactly fact checking. You say something. I hear it and think "but is it really?" and go looking for the facts. Not just what your source says, but what the reality actually is.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I was previously a defender of "first" hooks on DYK, even going as far as to oppose proposals on a blanket ban, but experience has shown that they have proven to be more trouble than they're worth. Even seemingly airtight "first" hooks, such as the recent "first Bermudian MLB player" (which none other than the MLB itself said was the case!), turned out to be inaccurate. We can probably still allow "first" hooks in certain circumstances, but given our issues with them, I'd now only support that if them being a "first" is the only interesting thing we can say about them and there are no other options. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems overly prescriptive in my opinion, and I think exaggerates the extent of the problems we’ve encountered at DYK overall.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"First" hooks have regularly been reported at ERRORS and other venues like here, it's a recurring issue. If "first" hooks (or really superlative hooks in general) weren't so consistently problematic, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, nor would there have been proposals to ban them altogether. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Failed proposals (and rightly so). I noticed you overturned the hook review without even bothering to engage with the sources… not exactly giving me confidence in fair and impartial reviewing.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

When there is growing sentiment (if not consensus) against "first" hooks, and you were going against that in approving the hook, it was probably for the best to hold that approval in the meantime. Yes, the hook seems airtight, but we know from experience that even airtight hooks are not necessarily perfect, and it seems unwise to go with a hook format that consensus is currently leaning against. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

where is the consensus? nobody has suggested a ban on these type of hooks accept you. no one has made a formal proposal. You are making an opinion up that nobody in this thread has even proposed?4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe "consensus" was the wrong word, but it is true that in recent times, there has been rising sentiment against "first" hooks, something that you acknowledged in your opening statement. At the very least, "first" hooks are controversial, and other editors have expressed their reservations against them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

yes a growing sentiment among a minority of DYK contributors. I don’t think this group is representative of the DYK community or Wikipedia editors at large. If a formal RFC were done I am pretty sure the community would lean hard on following written guidelines outside of DYK on multiple RS which is exactly what I am calling for. I don’t think a topic ban would be supported at all because it goes against the spirit of our content inclusion policies and policies prohibiting censorship. I’m raising this point precisely because this tiny group is pushing an agenda not compliant with wider guidelines. That is a problem.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Another issue is that it also depends on the kind of "first" being discussed here. There are "first" hooks that are easy to prove: it's easy to prove that George Washington was the first President of the US: just pull up a list of people who have been elected to the position and see who came first. Even then, his claim as the "first" US president, depending on how you define the position, isn't airtight either. On the other hand, "first Haitian NFL player" is more difficult to prove and also vague. Does it mean the first NFL player to come from Haiti, or the first NFL player of Haitian heritage? The first may be easier to prove but is not necessarily straightforward (as seen in the Bermudian MLB player case), the latter opens the door to more possible counterexamples. This is what I mean that "first" hooks are often more trouble than they're worth: proving that they actually are the "first" can be difficult, and even seemingly airtight cases could turn out to be false if a counterexample is found. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s a rather fruitless exercise looking at individual cases. The truth is one could present many cases of easy to prove firsts, and then other cases where they are difficult to prove. We could show DYK hooks of this type which had issues and other that sailed through without a problem. Hook verifiability issues crop up in all contexts. Not just this one. Occasionally errors happen. It’s not the end of the world as long as we make good faith efforts to prevent it. I don’t think this should be treated any differently than other contexts other than an increase in source verification standards because that’s already in our wider policies outside DYK.4meter4 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

We have numerous articles that show how problematic a "first" claim can be. List of scientific priority disputes is just one of many. List of multiple discoveries is yet another. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Numerous counter examples of non-problematic articles could also be produced. It's not helpful cherrypicking articles because each example is unique to itself. The ratio of error in these kinds of hooks is relatively small.4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think multiple reliable sources are necessary to confirm a "first", but I think probably at least one specialist source should be required. Newspapers, for example, are notoriously unreliable when it comes to the more obscure firsts (they are probably okay for well-documented topics like sports statistics). If you have a specialist source, or a specialist in the field, confirming a first, that should probably be sufficient.

Other than that, I have argued that both nominators and reviewers should be required to try and disprove a "first" claim by searching for other possible candidates for the "first". If this were a requirement, it would probably radically reduce the number of erroneous "firsts" getting to or close to the main page, because many of them can be disproven with a quick online search. Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If it were one minor newspaper making in passing a questionable 'first' claim, then I could agree it may be valid to reject. However, in Borgella's case, we over a dozen prominent newspapers discussing the fact across a span of three decades, and several of the newspapers featured stories specifically on him being the first. Not to mention the book about him is titled First Football Player of Haitian Descent Drafted In The NFL. I've also thoroughly searched for any other candidates for "first Haitian NFL player" and couldn't find any valid challengers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, if there's a book about the guy, that could be considered an expert source, could it not?

Otherwise, it sounds like the sourcing is strong enough regardless. Besides, newspapers tend to be pretty good on sporting firsts because they have dedicated sports writers. On random topics, not so much. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The term "first Haitian" is still vague enough that it would still be a good idea to clarify it in the article. I'm not sure if the sources support it, but changing it to "ethnic Haitian" might work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if we need some kind of guidelines regarding "first" hooks in general. Experience has shown that such claims are regularly challenged (just look at the recent "first Lithuanian bank" nomination), but there are rare cases where the "first" claim is airtight. It does not seem like the status quo is working, but it isn't clear what direction we should go in. A blanket ban might be the most effective, but it might be unpopular among nominators. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep. I think we should probably limit them to cases where you can pretty much explicitly prove it's the first, for example the first in a finite list of things where the list itself is sourced and there's no room for doubt about the claim. The first X in the List of FIFA World Cup finals might be an example of that because the finals themselves are clearly delineated and the stats for each one known. Anything looser though, including supposed subject-matter-expert sources, seems to be far too prone to error and I'd support a motion to prohibit those ones. (I was the Queue checker who approved the Bermudian MLB fact, and I did check unsuccessfully for counter examples myself, which just shows however exhaustive you try to be it's still unreliable).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Given the above, I've started an RfC below. It has been expanded to be about superlative hooks in general, although of course our main issue has been with "first" hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to offer an erroneous hook as an example of how easy it is to get these wrong:

• ... that Earl Lloyd was the first African American to play for an NBA team?

Wikipedia article

"Earl Francis Lloyd (April 3, 1928 – February 26, 2015) was an American professional basketball player and coach. He was the first African American player to play a game in the National Basketball Association (NBA).[2][3][4][5][6]"

Sources

Discussion

I think that most editors would find the hook solid, but further research would show that African Americans played for the NBL teams that currently exist as the Atlanta Hawks and Sacramento Kings post-merger. The Washington Post has criticized the NBA's official narrative as ignoring "important progress toward racially integrating the hardwood". Black Fives who cover the "African American basketball teams that played prior to the racial integration of professional leagues" specifically call out the sources above and call us out for leaning on them, 'What makes this worse is that supposedly bona fide journalists, writers, columnists, and hosts justify getting it wrong with, “that’s what the league says.” Or worse, “it’s on Wikipedia.”'. Regardless of how this discussion shakes out, I personally find an effective way to test superlative hooks to check for something that would disprove them. Does another source somewhere say that something else was earlier, faster, more expensive, etc? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a request for a new review from an uninvolved editor, as the original reviewer has said he will not return to this nomination, and it is already over two months old. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Moving my first prep to queue, so expert users please correct if I've made any mistakes. Comments below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dumelow, Narutolovehinata5, and TarnishedPath: This article only covers the history of the fort but not other aspects (its architecture, etc.; its heritage status application should probably be broken out to a different section). Per WP:DYKCOMPLETE, it may not deal adequately with the topic. One source (Dynamics of Urban St. George, Xlibris) is WP:SPS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Norris Mitchell is a Grenadian and c0-founder and president of a national conservation charity (see this news article), his self-published booked is used to reference only the fort's ownership and visitor numbers. I don't think that's controversial but if you like remove those two sentences. The article includes everything I could find about the fort from the 17th century to the departure of the police HQ in 2024. If there's anything else you can find on it feel free to add. I don't think WP:DYKCOMPLETE was meant to exclude articles such as this - Dumelow (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dumelow If no one else has a concern about these points, I have no problem moving forward -- just wanted to be sure they were flagged if there were concerns. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dclemens1971, thanks and I am happy to listen to wider opinions. Reading back on my comment above it may have come across a bit cold; I didn't intend it as confrontational, I am happy to work to improve this article as needed. Thanks so much for building/checking and checking this queue, I know it is a bit of a thankless role - Dumelow (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dumelow No worries and no offense taken! Since this is my first queue, I wanted to be sure I didn't miss anything (and I've been dinged before, see above, by a DYK admin for approving/promoting an article with self-published sources). I would have no trouble accepting Mitchell as an expert SPS if no other editors here have a concern. Assuming no one else responds, I'll remove the icon in the queue later today. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Good to go. Y

Good to go, although there is some mildly rough prose in the article that I expect could be improved by a bilingual editor. Y

There was discussion in the nomination about the source JewsInSports.org, but it appears to be published by a reliable publisher (the American Jewish Historical Society) and referenced by scholarly publications so I don't think it needs further discussion. It isn't being used to support the hook fact. Y

There was an issue with the nom not transcluding to the talk page, so I manually added the discussion. Otherwise good to go. Y

Moved from Prep 5. Good to go. Y

Moved from Prep 3. I made a slight change to the hook to match the source (iron wheels -> iron-shod wheels). Otherwise good to go. Y

Slight copyedit to the hook. Good to go. Y @Dclemens1971: Can you please link cystic fibrosis in the hook? Thriley (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Maximilian775, Darth Stabro, and TarnishedPath: The source said no less than eleven sets of twins, so I've updated the hook to say "at least 11". I added a claim made in the lead (and supported by the source) to the end of the article. Same issue as the top hook above with presentability; I broke out the brief description of the architecture into a separate section. Also bumped this down to the "Quirky" slot. Y Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Elias Ziade, Zzz plant, and TarnishedPath: There appears to be copyvio in this article. According to an earlier revision, This article was originally published in the Speleological Lebanon Magazine "Bulletin of the Lebanese Association for Speleological Studies - Issue 5 / March 1998", pp. 241-247. I am not sure how much of that source remains in the article given the language barrier, but machine translation of this source indicates it may be duplicated in this passage: The Greater Delmass cave is situated at an elevation of 1,200 meters (3,900 ft) on a rocky limestone cliff about 100 meters (330 ft) high known locally as Shir ad-Delmass or ad-Dalmaz. The cave mouth is a large natural triangular northeast-facing cleft about 30 meters (98 ft) high. It opens onto a natural gallery approximately 30 meters (98 ft) in length with chambers and room-like cavities. I've moved the hook to another prep but it may need to be pulled if there is not a good explanation. Revision deletion may also be needed once we determine what material is copied. Much smaller issue: The hook is not the most interesting to me, but it's the best-supported of those proposed, and if that's the only remaining issue I'm not going to quibble with the nominator, reviewer and promoter who thought it was interesting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Oof, thank you for flagging and kudos for catching it. I will be more careful about searching for copyvio in non-English sources going forward. As for the hook, I personally find it at least somewhat intriguing (mostly because of the height of the wall, which made me wonder how they logistically managed that i.e. with multiple floors/platforms?), but I can see how others might not. Although overall, agree that potential copyvio issues are much more important the hook's interesting-ness. Zzz plant (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Zzz plant, will you be fixing the copyvio issue? TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I reworked the flagged paragraph, but I think this needs a more in-depth look + it would be good to hear the author's perspective. As Dclemens1971 identified, this appears highly similar to Baroudi 1988. Made a revdel request for the most clearly similar stuff in older revs, but more may be in order. Zzz plant (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath @Zzz plant @Elias Ziade since copyright concerns remain, I am pulling this from Prep 3 for further attention. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael, Faldi00, and TarnishedPath: I think there is a legitimate question about this subject's notability. The article relies exclusively on primary sources, non-independent sources, trivial mentions and routine coverage, and he hasn't held any roles that would qualify under WP:NPOL. I've added a maintenance template and this may need to be pulled from the prep area if we don't see any WP:SIGCOV presented. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, I'm open to being wrong here, but I would have thought that being deputy secretary general of ASEAN (a regional grouping of 11 nations in SE Asia) falls within WP:NPOL Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The Sigcov here is from news source #5, which is a comprehensive coverage of his career and biography from id:Merdeka.com. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I think the question is whether being deputy secretary-general of ASEAN is a particularly notable office. (Secretary-General of ASEAN is, but there are four deputy secretaries-general and it seems to be a relatively bureaucratic office). @Jeromi Mikhael The machine translation combined with the odd format on the Merdeka.com profile (the "Profil" section it reads like a directory entry, not a substantive profile) makes it hard for me to evaluate it, but even assuming good faith on that source, for a WP:GNG/WP:NBIO pass we'd need multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV -- anything else to share? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, it's still an international office. Whatever way you want to classify it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion concerning this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:NPOL and ASEAN. TarnishedPath^talk 12:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

No other support for my concern about this role, so I think this is good to move forward. It would be good if more SIGCOV examples could be added to the article to make it ironclad, but in the meantime I will remove the "discussion" button in prep 5. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the articles I nominated before got canned due to lack of time for anyone to check it out. I assume that one would need a new hook if said article would be renominated? Ominae (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Depends why it timed out previously. Looking at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trichy_assault_rifle it wasn't any shortcomming with the hook, but the source which supported the hook. TarnishedPath^talk 04:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Not that, the article in question is the "Saskatchewan Marshal Service" in the talk page. AirshipJungleman29 called for a time out at the time. Ominae (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if an article whose DYK nomination failed and is then renominated, then as long as the issue was with the article and not the hooks, then the hooks can be reproposed. In this particular case, however, the issue appeared to be the hooks, with the problem being a mixture of interest and sourcing. Given that, if you do renominate the article in the future (for example, by bringing it to GA status), you will probably need to suggest new, more interesting hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The article I'm speaking of is the "Saskatchewan Marshal Service". I already mentioned it. The Trichy rifle page is already GAed and as such, I already nominated it for a DYK. Ominae (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The point is the same. If the nomination failed due to problems with the hook, and the article was renominated, new or revised hooks are needed. If the issue was with the article, the old hooks may be reused. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I saw you promoted my DYK nomination of Georgie Purcell to a prep area. My nomination included a photo, which was taken by me and which I was mildly keen to get to the main page as I think it's rather decent. However, the prep area it got moved to already includes a photo, meaning that the image of Purcell cannot be used. Is there any chance the Georgie Purcell hook could be moved to another prep area where the photo could be used? I'd understand if this isn't possible, but I'm happy to wait for it to appear on the main page. Cheers :) --LivelyRatification (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, editors are discouraged from requesting image slots, as image slots are in short supply, and requesting for image slots can be seen as unfair if such requests are granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification, unfortunately we have far many more hooks nominated with images than we do slots to put them in. I've yet to get any of my hooks which have an image with them in the first spot. Sorry. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense -- I didn't mean to ask for anything improper, I was just curious as the image factor was a non-zero part of my motivation behind writing and nominating the article. --LivelyRatification (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: there are currently no queues, with eleven and a half hours to go until the next update. Any assistance is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 13. We have a total of 417 nominations, of which 250 have been approved, a gap of 167 nominations that has decreased in size by 19 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Baltimore classification
• September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Sławomir (musician)
• September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Saving Grace (podcast)
• September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Erich Dieckmann (furniture designer)
• September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Vindelev Hoard
• September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Pearls Group
• September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Thagara
• September 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Yonki-no-kai Productions
• September 29: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Boeing machinists' strike
• September 30: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Open Cup final
• September 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Tilly Norwood
• October 1: Template:Did you know nominations/No Toilet, No Bride
• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam
• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Turkey water crisis
• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Dumagat people
• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/10 Things I Want to Do Before I Turn 40
• October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Irene (diplomat)
• October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Mariame Clément
• October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Saru (Star Trek: Discovery)
• October 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Queen's Theatre, Hornchurch
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The End of the Story
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Walang Biruan

Other nominations

• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Gowganda
• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Enderlin tornado
• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Antonie Mielke
• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Chiisana Koi no Uta
• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/How To Survive Christmas
• October 12: Template:Did you know nominations/The Republic Newspaper Office
• October 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Trouble (comics)

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) 03:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Bumping thread. TarnishedPath^talk 13:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that the bombastic voice of the UK X Factor has narrated 30,000 adverts?

I'm not entirely sure we should be using the term "bombastic" here and in the article, particularly in Wikivoice. First of all, the actual source attached to the term in the article, [1], doesn't actually use that term, although I gather from the nom page that four other sources do say it. But fundamentally, I don't think a word like that complies with WP:Encyclopedic tone. It is fine for pop culture media but I would expect us to be using more well-defined and formal language, particularly on a BLP. Furthermore, a look at Merriam Webster and Cambridge dictionaries reveals that the true meaning of the word is actually somewhat negative, being something akin to pompous, or loud but with over-inflated importance... I don't think that's the intended meaning here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I brought this up at the nomination and questioned if we should be using that term in Wikivoice, but the nominator said it was okay because it was used in multiple sources. Personally, I would have preferred him to be mentioned by name instead: if "bombastic" is to be used, it should be attributed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I solved the immediate problem by adding three sources for the bombastic claim.--Launchballer 14:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Neither Merriam Webster nor Cambridge say bombastic is particularly informal, and in fact Oxford Learners Dictionaries explicitly describes it as formal. (And having watched many episodes of the show, "pompous/loud with overinflated importance" is exactly what he provided...)--Launchballer 14:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Other possible words (though I don't personally object to "bombastic" per se): [Google Ngram Viewer: bombastic,theatrical,pompous,blustering]. "Theatrical" may be the most accurate (and it also works in both senses of the word). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I think with Launchballer’s modification there’s no real issue here. Personally I wouldn’t say “bombastic” has a negative connotation, especially when referring to a voice actor. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Your personal opinion doesn't seem to be borne out by the sources though... In In Cambridge dictionary it says the term is "mainly disapproving", while in Merriam Webster it likens it to pompous and overblown. I just don't think it's necessary or advisable to be using a term such as this on a BLP, when its meaning is unclear and open to negative interpretation. As Naruto says, the hook can just use his name. Or use some other more robust term to define his personality. Less hooky perhaps, but more encyclopedic and policy-compliant.Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

A common description of his best-known role that no reliable sources dispute is not "unduly negative", but I'm not comfortable arguing against the clock, so sure.--Launchballer 17:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Removed the word from the hook for simplicity’s sake. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the hooks and substituted one. A couple notes below:

@Maximilian775: Can you clean up the bare URLs in citations before this appears on the main page to approve its presentability? All other aspects the articles and hook are ready to go. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, done! Maximilian775 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael, BeanieFan11, and TarnishedPath: This paragraph appears to be based on answers given by Priyo in Q&A interviews ([2], [3]) and thus is not independently sourced and not NPOV: As ambassador, Priyo focused his works on enhancing economic and trade cooperation. He also promoted people-to-people contact through various means, including encouraging Colombian tourism, introducing Indonesian cuisine, advancing sports diplomacy by offering training and exhibitions in badminton and pencak silat in order to boost socio-cultural ties. He also supported the presence of the Indonesian-founded spiritual movement SUBUD, which has around 1,000 followers in Colombia, as a strong, pre-existing cultural link. It needs to be rewritten to attribute these comments to him if there are not secondary sources that can back up the same details. I've bumped this nomination to Prep 7 to facilitate this given how soon this hook would move to the mainpage otherwise. Like BeanieFan11, I find ALT0 rather dull and prefer a hook along the lines of what BeanieFan11 proposed, something like ALT2 ... that Priyo Iswanto used what he called "WhatsApp diplomacy" to initiate diplomatic relations between Barbados and Indonesia? I will leave it to the next queue mover to determine, but the sourcing issue needs to be addressed before it's queued. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the input - I've amended that part to attribute it to the ambassador and trimmed the promotional sentences. As the DYK nominator of the article I approve ALT2 as a substitute to the current hook. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Since this is going up tomorrow and the set is now protected, can a sysop like Amakuru swap ALT2 in? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 I bumped it preemptively to another prep, but an uninvolved editor may alter the hook in Prep 7. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and swapped the hook, let me know if there are still issues that need to be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 @Jeromi Mikhael Thanks for updating the hook and for addressing the sourcing issue in the article. I think it's now good to move into queue whenever a queuer gets to it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hook is in prep 7 and the under discussion sign is still there. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 19:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael Fixed. Sorry about that, got it mixed up in my mind with Michael Tene. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Akaza and TarnishedPath: Two things. One, this was reviewed by Pangalau, who's since been rumbled as a banned sockpuppet, not sure if that nullifies his review. The other thing is that this seems fairly ripe for an WP:DYKAPRIL hook, though I'm struggling to think of one - any ideas?--Launchballer 05:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, in regards to Pangalau, I was reviewing a few of their nominations when it came to light that they were a sockpuppet. That pissed me off a lot, as I had spent a bit of time with them getting their nominations up to snuff (they were repeatedly using the same QPQs over and over and I had to nudge them repeatedly to do the appropriate amount of new QPQs). I subsequently rejected all of their nominations. In regards to other editor's nominations which they have reviewed, I have taken the position of not adversely affecting others because of Pangalau's bad faith. Others may have different views and I'm willing to listen. I'll have another look at the article this evening and let you know if I can think of anything DYKAPRIL worthy. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, I just had another look and I can't think of anything. In support of not needing any further review beyond what a queuer would do, Akaza has taken a large number of articles about ships to GA and I spent a bit of time reading to ensure that the hook was supported by the source. You can see my comments in the nomination, which resulted in a change to the hook. TarnishedPath^talk 05:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Disappearance of Amanda Campbell

@EF5, Maximilian775, and Bunnypranav: The source is offline, and I don't see a quote from the source anywhere.--Launchballer 05:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer While full text is paid, a search on their archives shows the existence of the article and the first few words. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Soprillo

@Jonathanischoice: As above.--Launchballer 06:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

First two pages from the citation here. — Jon (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice, could you add an inline citation to "smallest saxophone" in the soprillo article? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I modified the first sentence of §Construction to state the smallest saxophone fact with citation, but using Nigel Wood's website; Cohen does not explicitly state that the soprillo is the smallest saxophone, but it can be implied from his discussion of its provenance on the first page (see link above). The comparison photograph clearly shows it is half the length of the B♭ soprano, but again it is not explicitly stated. I'm not sure how much we need to WP:SKYBLUE, but let me know if you want me to revisit the DYK wording and/or citation. — Jon (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I've also just realised, being new to this whole DYK enterprise and by looking at WP:DYKCRIT again, that although recently promoted to GA, Soprillo is not ≥ 1500 words (604 words + 263 refs = 867 total), which might disqualify this DYK? — Jon (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

1500 characters, not words; see WP:DYKCHECK. This is fine now.--Launchballer 11:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The Other Side (Kubin novel)

@Uriahheep228, Spiderpig662, and Bunnypranav: As above.--Launchballer 17:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The Google Books link works for me, but the actual quotation is on the page before the one linked in the nomination: "One day he picked up some leftover illustrations he'd drawn for Gustav Meyrink's The Golem, a book Meyrink wouldn't finish for some years, and began to compose a story to go along with them. Soon he was writing compulsively, and in almost no time at all, he completed The Other Side." Uriahheep228 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Works for me.--Launchballer 17:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael and TarnishedPath: As far as I can tell, the article says that Lantu was a deputy chief of mission and the hook says deputy ambassador. Not heard of the former before, but I'm not sure they're the same thing given that our article on deputy chief of mission says "The deputy chief of mission is usually considered the second-in-command to the head of mission (usually an ambassador)." Also, what makes Persada.or.id a reliable source?--Launchballer 17:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

In the Indonesian context the term is interchangeable. Here's another source from Manado Pos, a subsidiary of Jawa Pos: Sebelum Piay, Wadubes RI untuk Italia George ‘Kiki’ Lantu telah meninggal dunia lebih dulu pada 17 Mei 2021. [Before Piay, the Deputy Indonesian Ambassador to Italy, George 'Kiki' Lantu, passed away on May 17, 2021.] (Wadubes is the abbreviation for Wakil Duta Besar - deputy ambassador). Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The hook checks out, but I'd like to see the Persada source removed from the article.--Launchballer 18:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, let's roll.--Launchballer 18:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Two weeks from now (20 November) is Trans Day of Remembrance. We currently have Transgender violence hoax and Masoud El Amaratly at Approved, Remilia, Germ (song), and Dinosaur emojis at TM:TDYK, and the latter's Republican makeup has a hook that mentions transphobia. Possibly worth running a full thematic set?--Launchballer 07:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm up for it. TarnishedPath^talk 08:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems there is an image hook in the Dinosaur emoji nomination, and Masoud El Amaratly has an audio file that could also serve. CMD (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Article alerts, I also see that Kate Nambiar and Mustarjil have been nominated, Marsha P. Johnson has been nominated for GA (in which case I also recommend IARing the two week old Weinstein Hall occupation and running a double nom), the new articles Blossom C. Brown and Death of Lia Smith are less than a week old, and there are also the drafts Draft:RadPride, Draft:Fa'atama, and Draft:Moscow Community Centre for LGBT+ Initiatives. My thinking is that we want to run more biographies than anything else, though I'm not sure I'll be able to review Marsha P. Johnson quickly enough. Thoughts?--Launchballer 16:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My general thoughts towards thematic sets is that given they are sacrificing diversity in one aspect deliberately, it is probably good to maintain diversity in other ways, so I'm not sure we should run more than the usual 2-4 biographies if we don't have to. CMD (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My argument for including more than usual is that TDOR was set up to memorialise trans people. I'm thinking Masoud El Amaratly, Remilia, Blossom C. Brown, and Lia Smith, all of whom are trans, the non-bios Transgender violence hoax, Germ, Dinosaur emojis, and Mustarjil, and possibly Marsha P. Johnson if we can process her quickly enough and either Kate Nambiar or Republican makeup if not. (Possibly Hyperpop, but again, I can't review that quickly enough.)--Launchballer 17:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think it is a good idea to have Republican makeup in the set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fair, I only suggested it because there was a transphobia hook at the nom, but actually I missed that Nambiar was also trans, so I'd suggest running her as well. (I don't regard a set with bios at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 as violating the spirit of WP:DYKVAR.)--Launchballer 06:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've often put together sets with bios at 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, and I've yet to have anyone take any issue with that in regards to WP:DYKVAR. I see it as kind of necessary given that I think 40% of our noms are bios and others often run sets with only 2 or 3 bios. TarnishedPath^talk 07:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

also, DYKVAR kinda goes out the window with thematic sets anyway. one might reasonably expect a set about transgender people to consist mostly of hooks about transgender people. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a note of thanks to @Launchballer and everyone for proposing this specialist set. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Blossom C. Brown. Also, the Republican makeup article will use Kristi Noem as its thumbnail image (hover your mouse cursor over the link on desktop to see it), and so it may be inappropriate to run what appears to be a transphobia hook about her on a day that was started to remember the victims of transphobic murders. This could read to mean that she shot a trans person, when she actually shot a friendly puppy. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support, and let me know how I can help :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Kate Nambiar Mustarjil Remilia Dinosaur emojis Suicide of Lia Smith Germ (song) Blossom C. Brown Transgender violence hoax Masoud El Amaratly Agender

I made a table listing what needs doing (other suggestions welcome).--Launchballer 06:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I just looked at your talk page. Agender is nearly eleven days old, I'm guessing that's too long?--Launchballer 07:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've moved nominations which exist to the holding area. TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I've got a QPQ to burn, I'll take my chances :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Done: Template:Did you know nominations/Agender :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice, except it needs two QPQs. (If you can take the other two noms, I'm happy to go half and half on QPQs for all three, and I'm fairly sure there's no rule saying I can't review noms I donated a QPQ for?)--Launchballer 17:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

oh, right! i'll put in a second, np :) i've got a bunch saved up, happy to dump them. ooh, love the sidebar to the right! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I finally got around to nominating Smith and Brown, so they need reviewing; all eight of the others are in hand.--Launchballer 07:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll review Smith TarnishedPath^talk 07:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

on Template:Did you know nominations/Mustarjil, there's an ongoing discussion on Talk:Mustarjil, so I'm not sure if that would preclude it running? Would welcome people's thoughts Lajmmoore (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to leave a note, that hopefully a reviewer (@DocWatson42) will have time to look at the discussion this week, which will hopefully move it forwards. For TDOR the page itself is stable, but the discussion I mentioned is at a bit of an impasse Lajmmoore (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore, can you provide us with a TLDR of what the dispute is. Does it affect the proposed hooks. If so, are there alternative hooks which can be proposed which are still in keeping with the theme? TarnishedPath^talk 08:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, @Onceinawhile is probably better placed to share their concerns, since the reasoning has altered several times during the discussion, and I'm really not 100% clear. That said concerns appear to range from SYNTH to OR to DUEWEIGHT to SIGCOV, none of which I think apply and much of the discussion is me suggesting comprises (which are generally not responded to). Lajmmoore (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The TLDR of the core issue is that there is no known source for the article topic as a whole. As Lajmmoore wrote a couple of weeks ago: “General sense on mustarjil - I haven't come across a publication that covers the topic.”. That has meant that my questions around possible SYNTH or DUEWEIGHT issues cannot be proven one way or the other. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

& I don't think there is a need to wait for an imagined future source, when there are already a range of reliable sources about aspects of the topic. I'd point people to the take a look at the discussion where repeatedly I've discussed the sources used and another editor has suggested WP:BLUDGEONING. Personally I would like to move constructively forwards on the talk page. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore, Onceinawhile, and TarnishedPath: I've posted on the talk page, but I think the concern here is resolvable. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii, I think we've got a full set anyway, unless others wanted to run 10 hooks? TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Ps, I'll provide a review of the hook sometime this evening if someone doesn't beat me. TarnishedPath^talk 05:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and that's fine. This hook would be related to the sound hook, so if you found other options that will just create better variety in this set. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I did suggest making mustarjil and Masoud El Amaratly a double nom, but I'm also happy with 10 hooks.--Launchballer 06:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, I see you've started promoting some of the nominations to Prep 6 for November 20. Do we know which hook we want in the image slot? TarnishedPath^talk 05:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I reckon it's a choice between Masoud El Amaratly or Kate Nambiar, though the latter's not in the nom yet. If you organise the crop, either Leeky or I can approve and the other can promote.--Launchballer 05:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to go with Kate. You've previously said pics of women get better stats and so far it's been proven true. TarnishedPath^talk 06:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Scrap that. The preview of the crop was not good. I think it will have to be Masoud. TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right on that, and have promoted the other two. I nominated the final three, so must ask for another reviewer.--Launchballer 06:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Will jump on it. TarnishedPath^talk 06:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I've just promoted two. Someone else will need to promote Suicide of Lia Smith as Launchballer nominated it and I approved it. Pinging @Theleekycauldron. TarnishedPath^talk 07:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. (There probably shouldn't be two Kates next to each other, but I'll rearrange when Smith's been promoted.)--Launchballer 07:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I was concerned with not having bios next to each other and missed that I ended up putting two Kates next to each other. TarnishedPath^talk 07:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I moved them around so the bios are at 1, 3, 7, and 9.--Launchballer 07:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that Masoud El Amaratly has been promoted as the lede hook. However, while I understand that the hook is part of the transgender special occasion set, is him being transgender really the best hook we can come up with? Instead of a hook that goes "that Iraqi folk singer Masoud El Amaratly was a transgender man", maybe something like "that transgender Iraqi folk singer Masoud El Amaratly was..." would work better? The fact that he was active as a transgender singer in the 1920s onward is a possible promising angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the term mustarjil could be used in some way that would be interesting and intriguing to readers? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps "… that transgender Iraqi folk singer Masoud El Amaratly was probably poisoned to death by his wife?”

Probably might not be the best word, perhaps allegedly, but the sources take it pretty seriously. 1brianm7 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Giving it a little more thought, probably not appropriate given the day. 1brianm7 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

maybe ... that transgender Iraqi folk singer Masoud El Amaratly was paid 32 rupees for this first recording? Lajmmoore (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with the rupees hook; if someone can verify it, I'll assess it for promotion.--Launchballer 20:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that it's not clear if that value is high or low (probably low, but that would require context). Are there other options?

As for the poisoning angle, normally I'd agree, but this is Transgender Day of Remembrance. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps “… that while transgender Iraqi folk singer Masoud El Amaratly was paid eight rupees for his first song, his music proved so popular that he recorded more for a pay of 150 rupees per song?

The source talks about conversion rates (8 rupees was $2.60 USD, which is about $52 today), though they’re not currently in the article. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it would work if we added conversions to the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there precedent for how that would work in a hook? I am having a hard time thinking of how to phrase it. (relevant passage, "He was paid thirty-two Indian rupees for his first four songs ($11.60 at the time, equivalent to $206 in 2024). His label distributed the music nationally and it grew to such demands that the records company called him back to raise his per-song fee from eight rupees to 150, a lavish sum at the time." 1brianm7 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

One possibility, although probably contentious, is to go with some variation of the poisoning angle. As the subject is long dead, DYKBLP should not apply. Instead, the issue should be how to word the fact to make it clear that the circumstances behind the poisoning remain unclear. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue I realized with it, and I suspect other people have to, is that what it is definitely interesting and would work on any other day, it’s talking about a transgender man getting murdered on Trans day of remembrance. While the sourcing rejects him being murdered due to transphobia as a rumor, instead saying he was likely murdered due to his wife’s greed, it’s a little too close. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a hook based on his death. What about ... that in 1936 transgender Iraqi folk singer Masoud El Amaratly performed live on Radio Baghdad? Erlick, Eli (2025-05-27). Before Gender: Lost Stories from Trans History, 1850-1950. Beacon Press. pp. 60–65. Lajmmoore (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I realise "singer sang on radio" isn't inherently interesting, but I do think the combination of date, location and gender make it interesting Lajmmoore (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Regrettably that angle's interest may still not be obvious or at least immediately evident, so probably not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

There is always the (probably very bad) idea to WP:NAVEL. "... that despite repeatedly praising the singing (attached) of transgender Iraqi folk singer Masoud El Amaratly, Arabic Wikipedia repeatedly deadnames him?"

Almost certainly a bad idea, as I said. I do think there was something in the rupee idea. "... that after the music of transgender Iraqi folk singer Masoud El Amaratly (excerpt attached) proved a success, his pay per song increased from 8 to 150 rupees?" (Equivalent to $51.50 to $965.625 today, which are annoying unround numbers) 1brianm7 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sure if that works, so it might be better to ask for a second opinion here, particularly from the original reviewer. Regardless, since the hook will no longer revolve around El Amaratly being transgender, I'm wondering if we can remove his being trans from the hook. The hooks for Brown and Nambiar do not mention them being trans, and it is debatable if El Amaratly being trans is essential to the hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, maybe I'm biased (look at username!) but while I know while NLH may be a bit sensitive to singer sang song hooks, the idea of a transgender (or, at least, somebody who didn't neatly fall into the cisgender male-female artificial binary) singer active in Iraq in the 1930s is really interesting to me. It makes me wonder - was he uniquely talented? Was life different for LGBTQ+ people in the middle east back then? Plus, one of the most annoying myths about LGBTQ+ people is that they're a modern invention - if you'll pardon my RGW, I really love it when we have hooks that dispel misinformation or confront stereotypes. Yes, even if they don't get the same view counts. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian, @Narutolovehinata5 we're still waiting for Template:Did you know nominations/Suicide of Lia Smith to be promoted. Anyone got a bit of time? TarnishedPath^talk 08:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath and Theleekycauldron: I'm going to make an educated guess that if we're not comfortable running a Masoud death hook for TSOR, then a 'suicide of' hook is also out of the question. The question is what, if anything, should we replace it with? I mentioned three drafts above, but User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult shows Brussels Pride, Erica Deuso, List of non-binary political office-holders, and Michael A. Gilbert as created in the last week and a bit.--Launchballer 23:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, without looking too deep, I'd say Deuso. Would need to check notablity though as they've only been elected to the position of mayor. TarnishedPath^talk 00:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: There's no policy basis and no common sense in censoring a hook on suicide of Lia Smith in a set for a holiday that commemorates trans people who have died unjustly. I would object to the current hook on the grounds that it's sourced to the opinion of a single blogger, which I'm not sure is DUE. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course, no idea what I was thinking. I proposed another hook, perhaps you could approve and TarnishedPath could promote?--Launchballer 01:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I've approved it as I wouldn't be able to promote given I provided the initial review. @Theleekycauldron can you have a look and promote it if you're happy. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Will look and hopefully promote tomorrow morning :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The '1920s' bit was already in the hook when I promoted, so I put it back.--Launchballer 10:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: It's a bit of a tough situation. On the one hand, I do think that being a transgender musician from Iraq in the 1930s is an interesting fact. On the other hand, I'm really not sure if this is the best option for a hook. It would be like a hook that goes "Did you know that X is a woman?" Maybe it's just being me, but making their being transgender the main hook fact actually feels disrespectful to me, as if we're reducing him to his being transgender. I'm all for a hook that involves him being transgender, I just don't think that a hook about his being transgender is the way forward.

The tough thing here is that, if we go with another hook, it becomes less clear if mentioning that he is transgender is even necessary, which is a shame since the reason we're even doing this set is to highlight transgender people. It's just that, if it were any other day, we probably would not even be including the "transgender" description in the hook, and the set already mentions other names without saying they're transgender. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

... we're censoring a hook about a transgender man getting murdered because it would be going into a set for a holiday commemorating murdered trans people? Acknowledging that is not an issue, it is the point of TDoR. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This might be unpopular, but given that the set is running in a few days and it doesn't seem like this issue will be resolved soon, would it be possible to pull the El Amaratly hook and replace it with something else? El Amaratly can run on a different date once consensus on a hook has been agreed upon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Possibly with Template:Did you know nominations/Mustarjil TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The only other hook that has a compliant image is Dinosaur emojis. That said, there's a world of difference between "X is a woman" and "X trans person was famous in the 1920s", which is what we have now. I think the current hook's fine.--Launchballer 08:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Although, "that mustarjil such as Masoud El Amaratly...". Let's see what that nom comes back with.--Launchballer 08:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Just finished talking to my elderly mum (Friday night routine) so I'll have a look at it now. TarnishedPath^talk 10:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This might work: ... that Masoud El Amaratly, one of Iraq's most popular folk singers in the 1920s (listen above), was a mustarjil? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0 can you do me a solid and propose that hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Mustarjil. I've just finished reading everything I need to and I'm ready to provide a review and if you provide your hook in the discussion there it will save us some time. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I added the hook to the nom. (The reason I hadn't ticked the nom off myself is because there were notability questions, but I think Rjjiii's comments on the talk page solve it?)--Launchballer 11:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I spent a bit of time reading everything and Rjjiii did a fantastic job of resolving that discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I've just finished messing with Template:Did you know nominations/Mustarjil. What now? I pull Template:Did you know nominations/Masoud El Amaratly and someone promotes Mustarjil? TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

What you can do is overwrite the existing hook. Really, I should have let someone else promote, but as the article's been reviewed by us both and it's Cl3phact0's hook, I've promoted it WP:NOTBURO.--Launchballer 11:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be okay with a double hook since at least this time it's also about the term itself and not just simply about El Amaratly being a transgender. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. Everything in order? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

All good. TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much everybody - I've had a very busy day and am just catching up. Thanks to all the new hook proposers and all the care taken over Masoud and mustarjil, and for the all the work that goes into a TDOR set. I mentioned this to a trans friend and they described everyone's work here (they're not a Wikipedian) as A+++ allyship Lajmmoore (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If I may, it was a joy to see this thematic set today. I appreciated this on multiple levels and you all did a great job putting it together. Thank you for your work! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, BeanieFan11, TarnishedPath, and Narutolovehinata5: The hook as written can be read to mean that he was a llama rider (but did not enjoy it). Is there some possible variation on the hooks proposed at the nomination that would be more accurate like:

• ... that, despite the myth being repeated in media guides, NFL player Jairo Penaranda did not participate in llama-broncing? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • How about, more simply, ... that, despite popular myth, NFL player Jairo Penaranda did not participate in llama-broncing? BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Also, I'm not opposed to a non-llama hook, but this will roll onto the main page in less than 24 hours. Thanks for the replies, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the llama thing, so I can't really think of much. TarnishedPath^talk 03:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Just a heads up that I bumped this to prep 1 when promoting Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii all good. TarnishedPath^talk 03:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Emma Finucane's hook says that she recently became the first British woman to win three medals at a single Olympic games for sixty years. However, Summer 2024 was over a year ago now, so I don't know if that counts as recently. Perhaps it should be reworded to specifically say that it happened in 2024? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I took the liberty of separating this from the other prep 3 as that was about a different set which already ran. @Dclemens1971: actually tried to change it to that, although I objected as a) Summer 2024 is the most recent Olympics and b) the hook flows much better without what would need to be two commas.--Launchballer 05:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don’t think of that as “recent” but I don’t feel strongly either way. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: @Dclemens1971: @Surtsicna: I'm not familiar with the DYK process and didn't know this article was included, so forgive me for being late, but the hook "... that of all Baltimore virus groups, only double-stranded DNA viruses replicate the same way cellular life forms do?" is a bit incorrect, specifically the use of the word "replicate". A simple fix would be to swap the word "replicate" with something like "produce mRNA" and that would get the meaning across more accurately. Velayinosu (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The source says: "Double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) viruses, with the same replication-expression strategy as in cellular life forms." Replicate seemed like a reasonable rewording, but if it is somehow not accurate, I think we should use "same replication-expression strategy". Replicate or replication is more accessible to an average reader. Surtsicna (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was an important enough topic to surface at DYK, where hard science hooks are relatively rare. I support whatever wording balances accuracy, precision and intelligibility. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, rewording the hook to something like "... that of all Baltimore virus groups, only double-stranded DNA viruses use the same replication-expression strategy as cellular life forms?" seems fine. Velayinosu (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Y Done. (And moved this down to the right prep area discussion.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii and Launchballer: As it seems that there's at least a reasonable chance that Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Consort Gallery went “off the rails” due to procedural mistakes (likely magnified by my own misunderstanding DYK etiquette), more than for any specific policy failures, would you please consider reversing this closure and giving it a fresh review? Happy to put a bit more time into this if it might result in a positive outcome. It would be very much appreciated. Cheers,  Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Another reason why the nomination was closed was because, as of today, it is already two months old. Per WP:DYKTIMEOUT, nominations that are older than two months old may be closed if they remain unpromoted and have unresolved issues. Although the nomination was closed just a few days before the two-month mark, it did not seem like the issues were going to be resolved soon anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This is what I saw when I wrote "pretty much everything else seems to be in order", and it's what led me to believe that "the issues were going to be resolved soon" (in other words, to make the assumption that the review process was nearly finished).

That, coupled with the fact that DYKTIMEOUT says if a nomination timed out while it was waiting for a review or a re-review, consider reviewing the nomination rather than rejecting it – hence the assumption that working through the reviewer's requests and trying to sort the last details so that they'd be happy to add that last missing Y was just part of normal DYK process.

In good faith, and based on these two seemingly rational assumptions, much time was spent. It's a shame to lose all that time. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

(This is Rjjiii on my mobile account): While the first 3 reviews put concerns in their own words and cited essays, their words and those essays reflect the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources. I can give a deeper explanation if needed. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please. That would be very helpful. Thanks, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No, because this still has unresolved issues. You will be able to renominate once it's passed GA.--Launchballer 15:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. It never hurts to ask, right? It all started so well (Great job on the article and nice hooks to boot, etc.) and ended with an irrevocable "yeet". Too bad. Bit of a rollercoaster ride. Thanks for considering the request anyhow. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at this from as many angles as I'm able, and I'm just not seeing the "unresolved issues" that merited a fail. The requested revisions were actively, constructively, and conscientiously being resolved when you failed the nom with a DYKTIMEOUT. I don't mean to be pedantic, but in this case, I think that simple mistakes were made (with absolutely no malice intended), from wherein it's snowballed out of proportion.

Also, please see WP:DAOHATTHOD, which you might take into consideration in this case too.

To be clear, I have nothing but respect for you and the work you do here (and I certainly didn't mean to offend you by reverting what seemed like a clear-cut error). I simply think this ought to be addressed anew – probably through a fresh review by an uninvolved reviewer. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Here are some connections between the comments and cited essays with Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

WP:OVERQUOTE (the essay)

"Quotations should not substitute for exposition in Wikipedia's own voice. They are useful for capturing the original author's tone or attitude, but shouldn't be used instead of a clear editorial summary of what they say."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, § WP:VOICE (policy)

"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. [...] Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, [...]"

Reviewer comment

"Lots of unattributed quotes two months into nom"

• Comment: A good faith effort to resolve this and refine the text more generally per other comments was actively being implemented at the time of the apparently mistaken "yeeting" (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources, § WP:INTEXT (guideline)

"In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution may need to be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing."

WP:TOOMANYREFS (the essay)

"If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability. [...] If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill."

Wikipedia:Citing sources, § WP:TSI (guideline)

"When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to see which part of the material is supported by the citation; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed."

• Comment: Issue discussed with reviewer and apparently resolved at the time. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:OVERQUOTE (the essay)

"A major problem with quotes in the lead is the concern about giving WP:UNDUE weight to one or a few sources within the limited space of the lead section."

• Comment: Quotes were removed from the lead section during review process, per request. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, § WP:UNDUE (policy) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10

01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. [...] Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery."

Reviewer comment

" I stick to one citation and bundle as necessary. I do this as a courtesy to the reader and to promote readability of the text. I'm still not clear why there is a "better source needed" tag."

• Comment: Both of these were resolved during review (here and here). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources, § WP:CITEBUNDLE (guideline)

"Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote."

• Comment: Discussed elsewhere; also, this does not appear to be a DYK policy issue per se (and it certainly doesn't seem like it ought to be grounds for outright rejection of the nom). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll study all of this before submitting another DYK. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

​Follow-up: In this instance, it looks as if most of these issues were actually resolved or in the process of being resolved in this series of edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (per DYK reviewer request) – and some were also discussed elsewhere in various parallel threads with additional context added.

Again, the information and thoughts above (not to mention the considerable amount of time that's been invested here) are appreciated, but there still seems to be a disconnect between policy and outcomes.

DYK policy (which probably doesn't need to be quoted here, of all places!), says "DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia" as well as "to acknowledge the work that editors do to expand and improve Wikipedia, encouraging them to continue their efforts and thereby contributing to editor retention and ongoing content improvement", which seems to be the exact opposite of the apparent outcome here at present.

As the intention with this article was to try to take it from Creation --> DYK --> GA --> FA over time (in the hope of achieving an elusive and coveted Wikipedia:Four Award), this unfortunate misunderstanding is, well, rather a discouragement. What's the best way out of this loop? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

PS: Signing previously added comments (above). Apologies for the oversight. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to nominate the article for GA, have it pass GAN, then renominate it for DYK. By then, it will be more likely to succeed, especially since passing a GA review would also likely mean that it resolved whatever issues hounded the original DYK nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but it needs DYK first to be eligible for WP:4A, so that won't work in this case. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have never heard of Four Awards needing to go in that specific order before, and if that is the case, I imagine it is a remnant of the time before being a newly-promoted GA was a pathway to DYK (in the past, DYKs could only be new creations or expansions, not newly-promoted GAs). If that is truly the case, I suggest that there be a discussion at Four Award clarifying that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not the case; WP:4A says "The DYK nomination does not need to be made before the article becomes a Good Article." CoconutOctopus talk 11:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, my mistake! I read "all four stages of editorial development (creation, DYK, GA, FA)" as an ordered sequence. I stand corrected.

Be that as it may, this particular case still appears to be an outlier as the "rejection" was the result of another error (amplified by a misunderstanding), and as such, should probably be corrected in good faith. That's the primary issue. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It may be helpful for all aspects of what you are attempting to do to wait a bit and try later at the GA-to-DYK pathway (nominate and have the article pass GA, then renominate for DYK on those grounds). The GA review process, at this juncture, is better suited to solving the problems that are outstanding from this nomination, if any, and will provide more legitimacy to your article when it returns. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You may well be right. Had hoped that the error could be rectified by gently pointing out some of the mistakes that were made (including my own). Not having much luck with that, are we? Seems that your advice is to abandon any further such effort?

Perhaps this project would benefit from something akin to the flowcharts that we use for AFC and NPP (e.g., File:Flow_chart_for_AFC_3.1.png, File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png, or File:NPP_flowchart.svg). This would help clarify the process for outsiders and also help eliminate some of the the vagaries. It also seems that if by using the current process, starting from Wikipedia:DYK_help, we can go from "Great job on the article and nice hooks to boot" to the purgatory of a random "yeet", then we have a problem.

I'll hold out hope for a fair and rational outcome here. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: have you looked at this from the angle of the DYK backlog? Possible ways to reduce the backlog were discussed at length in September, but nothing was agreed. Currently more hooks are getting approved than DYK is able to publish and WP:DYKTIMEOUT is one of the few agreed ways of reducing the backlog. Ideally we would run two sets a day more often, but that relies on the availability of prep builders and admins to do the extra work. TSventon (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for the link to September's discussion (of which I was not aware, and which is abundantly informative and helpful – even if ultimately inconclusive).

I confess that when I said above that I had looked at this from as many angles as I am able, I was not taking a meta-view of the entire DYK project at that level of granularity into consideration -- beyond, perhaps, in the sense that this small matter might have helped identify a few more vagaries and loopholes that may well be ripe for improvement (e.g., that WP:DYKTIMEOUT is not a catch-all "yeeting" tool, and applying it as such blunts its actual purpose – but then, if all we have is a hammer then sooner or later everything's going to start to look like a nail).

Insofar as taking the broadest possible perspective, if you are saying that I should just drop it because there's a surging backlog, etc., then I get that. (Pretty much what Sammi Brie seems to be saying above too.) My point (still) remains that the review should have been completed according to policy, following the project's own guidelines and stated purpose, etc. – not by hammering down the nail that sticks out. If you shift by yet another order of magnitude, then failing to rectify a pretty clear-cut mistake (in my view, at least) lessens the quality (and appeal) of the whole ball of wax (again, in my view).

One way to spread the workload more equitably (and reduce the backlog) is to get more diligent and detail oriented people working on the project. One way to do that is to make the project appealing to more such people. I came back in good faith (in the hope of recovering lost time) with a simple request that what looked very much like a simple mistake and misunderstanding simply be rectified. I've now spent more time mired in unintended complexity than a wiser person might, and may yet leave empty handed (though perhaps ever so slightly wiser). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

(Splitting thread for clarity. Please continue DYK backlog discussion below.)

(Please see discussion about TIMEOUT usage below)

November 28 is the 10th anniversary of the Killing of Lloyd Reed, the shooting death of a police officer in a small Pennsylvania town that distinguishes itself from so many other such tragic events in that the shooter was acquitted of murder charges (There is maybe one other such instance in the U.S. over the last 15 years, and I wrote that article and got it to DYK also). I have nominated it, finished the two QPQs required and request that someone review it so we can get it on the Main Page that day ... it looks like we are just about to start being able to fill Prep 7, so there's time. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I ticked it.--Launchballer 07:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case and @Launchballer, I've promoted this to Prep 7 which runs on 28th November. TarnishedPath^talk 22:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: We're at zero queues. I just tried to start on the next set, but realised I'm just not feeling up to it (although the top hook should be fine).--Launchballer 11:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably a bit premature for me to attempt jumping into the deep-end without floats (WP:DYKPBI is a bit daunting unto itself). That said, I am certainly willing to have a go at any part of the process that's suitable and try to help out in any way I can. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0 The urgent issue with the queue today is a queue mover issue, not a prepper issue. The top queue's slot is always protected so only an admin can move a prep into that slot. How non-admins can help with this particular queue is by doing checks on the individual hooks in the prep collaboratively by carefully follow the required checks at WP:DYKAI and leaving notes below at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_4. This enables an admin who may be pressed for time to consult these checks and then move the prep area into queue. New prep builders are welcomed to promote individual hooks as well! The instructions are daunting at first but you get the hang of it. Be sure to install the PSHAW tool, which makes it much easier. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Starting a group review process for Prep 4 to speed up the process since an admin is now required to move it into queue. Anyone can feel free to dive in with notes below. Please leave a tick mark next to the hook in the prep when you are finished. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Y @Launchballer has already passed Soprillo. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I swapped this one out per below; Teck Lee LRT station checks out.--Launchballer 17:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Y Georgie Purcell should be good to go. Launchballer removed some inappropriately sourced content for a BLP and I removed an unnecessary source for the same reason. With those fixes, the article and hook meet the requirement. I trimmed the hook slightly to improve readability. (I don't think the greyhound's name is essential.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Y Kushiro Wetlands megasolar issue. Good to go. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Y Formula One Checked  — Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Y Robert Burns Memorial Statue (Fredericton) - looks OK  — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Y Arceuthobium laricis. Per the nom page, I've amended "speeds of 100 km/h" to clarify that it's almost that speed, since the 27 m/s corresponds to around 97.2 km/h. However, it was also a bit difficult to know which mph speed to use if we're going for an "almost". Saying "almost 62 mph" is a bit confusing when the actual speed is cited as 60.4 mph. So I've removed the mph conversion completely for now, not sure it's really needed. Pinging @HolyEgg and Kevmin: for feedback, but otherwise Checked  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks; looks good to me! HolyEgg (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Y Rants and Incendiary Tracts Could only evidence one murderer. Otherwise, fine.--Launchballer 17:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Y Cherry Lane Cemetery Looks good. I resolved a rather gnarly WP:CLUMP, but other than that no issues.--Launchballer 17:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Y Festival of Transitional Architecture. Tweaked hook very slightly for text-source integrity (source and article say "cities" rather than "city"), but otherwise good to go.--Launchballer 14:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Now promoted by @Amakuru:, who I'm sure will remove the ticks.--Launchballer 15:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Ah sorry, didn't see this, I just thought the queue needed promotion. Will revert.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I did have a look at the top hook in the set above, and just wanted to query whether the source [4] is really a WP:RS? It looks like the private website of a musician Nigel Wood, and I'm not seeing evidence that he's himself notable. Would be good to get a better source on this. Googling the world's smallest saxophone also seems to reveal there's a bit of a fuzzy line between what's a sax and what isn't. Saxophone#Related instruments talks of bamboo saxes, which might or might not be shorter than the soprillo and might or might not be regarded as saxes. Like all superlative hooks, this needs extra robust sourcing and again, some definitive sourcing establishing the soprillo as being widely regarded as the shortest would be useful.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jonathanischoice:. I am probably going to bump this.--Launchballer 17:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I just added three references that may be of use (see article's Talk page). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru: This set's now ready.--Launchballer 17:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I've re-promoted it.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the extra sources; the article already cites the Eppelsheim page, and the video of Attilio Berni (also a WP:RSSELF) is in external links, but the Classic FM non-primary source will help. Just to note that musicians are often overlooked under WP:RSSELF. Nigel Wood is a professional musician, saxophonist, one of the very few recording artists of the soprillo, and thus expert in his field (saxophone performance) which qualifies him as a RS for that. Note that musicians' peer-reviewed output tends to be more often recordings and liner notes, which if we're lucky are reviewed in the press somewhere, rather than academic articles. Also, nobody serious is including Indonesian bamboo saxophone-shaped objects in the saxophone family. Would it be easier just to remove the "smallest" claim from the hook? — Jon (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru, @Cl3phact0, @Jonathanischoice and @Launchballer is this all resolved? The hook still has a comment stating that it is under discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 22:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I would certainly like to see some additional secondary sourcing added to the statement in the article that it's the smallest saxophone. It seems like that's probably a reasonably agreed-upon statement based on what Jon mentions above, but I'd like to see the article source it robustly. What I can find is a bit variable. This book acknowledges the existence of the soprillo, but kind of dismisses it as not a practical instrument, which was kind of my point about this being a bit of a grey area.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't get me started about orchestration textbooks. Most of them keep saying contrabass trombones and cimbassos aren't practical either, despite their near-constant use in Hollywood soundtracks since at least the 1990s. Anyway, I'm buffing refs now. Jon (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The interview (8, in German) contains the question: Eine andere Ihrer Schöpfungen ist das Soprillo. Vom tiefsten Saxophon zum höchsten - das liegt auf den ersten Blick nicht nahe. Wie kam es zu diesem "Stimmungswandel"? – roughly, "Another of your creations is the Soprillo. From the lowest saxophone to the highest - that's not obvious at first glance. How did this “mood swing” come about?" But honestly, this is such a ridiculous exercise in bike-shedding that I'd rather just drop the "smallest" claim from the DYK and make an ALT1, please let me know on my talk page if you want me to do this, there are now three different threads and I've lost track of what's going on in the resulting firehose of this page. — Jon (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've bumped this back to Prep 6 given it is still under discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, how about this, with the same source and image:

ALT1 ... that the soprillo (example pictured) is a very small saxophone half the length of the soprano saxophone, and pitched one octave higher? Jon (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You could (if you like) make it even shorter: ... that the soprillo saxophone (example pictured) is about half the length of a soprano saxophone and pitched one octave higher? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru, @Jonathanischoice and @Launchballer, is @Cl3phact0 suggested hook acceptable to all? TarnishedPath^talk 21:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, as someone univolved then I'm going to make the change. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Who am I to stand in the way of progress :) Jon (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I've moved this into queue and am beginning all the required checks. I will need someone else to check Madeleine Tchicaya since I'm the one who approved the hook that was promoted. (I would have swapped it out but there are no other biography hooks in preps that I'm uninvolved with.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: I've subbed in one hook and done checks on everything else except Tchicaya as noted above since I approved the promoted hook; would appreciate it if someone could take a look at that one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I reworded the article for attribution purposes, but otherwise no problems.--Launchballer 04:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael, Dumelow, and Bunnypranav: I can't find any discussion of reopening embassies in China or Afghanistan in the hook source, which is itself a non-independent primary source (it's the subject's CV) and thus not a reliable source; if we used it we'd have to attribute the fact to him (a la Asruchin claims that he was involved in....). The article does not state what the hook does about him being involved in reopening an embassy in China. Frankly, the hook is not interesting, but if that were the only issue I'd probably defer to the rest of you -- but there are several other problems. If there's not clarity here in the next hour I will pull this hook. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Do what you want. The frequency of the hook pulls in the past two months have been much more frequent in comparison to the previous years and I'd rather see my hooks being pulled than losing my sanity. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Pulled in that case. Will move this discussion into the nom page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

According to Google Translate (which I used as stated in my review) the source says "Member of the Opening Team of the Indonesian Embassy in Beijing, November 1990 ... Head of the Reactivation Team of the Indonesian Embassy in Kabul, January 2004". The source page is published by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia which I deemed to be reliable for such information. Happy to review any alternative hooks - Dumelow (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The hook said "re-opening" w/r/t China, not opening. And while a government website may generally be trustworthy, it's not sufficiently independent when it's hosting a CV since people tend to prepare their own CVs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, Willthorpe, and JuniperChill: I don't see the hook fact -- that Barry's girlfriend is OK with their sex life being discussed on Barry's podcast -- anywhere in the source that's listed for that fact in the article. Can you point to where it's found? Is it in a different source? Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It's in [5], which is what the article uses: "She’s so used to me coming home and being like, ‘Babe, I’ve just revealed what we did in the bedroom last week – I am really sorry.’ But I specifically remember one time when I spoke about this ‘CPR role-play’ that we do – and I forgot to specify that it’s not sexual, it’s just funny. But now people come up to her like, ‘Why do you guys do CPR in the bedroom?’ That’s the only time she’s genuinely been like, ‘Grace, that was mortifying!’".--Launchballer 15:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 you have the wrong source! This is it – [6]. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Y @Launchballer @Willthorpe OK, thanks - confirmed now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

See discussion above at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Priyo_Iswanto -- this is good to go now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Modified the hook slightly -- the sources indicate the data feed was shut down by the city, not that the city shut down the site itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I will try to review Erich Dieckmann (furniture designer) this week. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to review Erich Dieckmann article on its merits alone? I see that there is some talk of GPT/copyright issues, and that a review has already been started and stopped a couple of times (which is a tad off-putting). Is this one that would be allowed to TIMEOUT because of insurmountable problems? Happy to do the work, but obviously don't want to pour time into a non-starter here. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: I have boldly moved this from "Older nominations needing DYK reviewers" to its own section. TIMEOUT doesn't mean that the problems were unsurmountable, just that they weren't resolved in 60 days.

@Launchballer: you commented on the nomination, presumably the problems have not been resolved? TSventon (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It really depends. If a nomination is two months old and the problems are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, then yes, the nomination should be timed out. However, if the issues are surmountable, then oftentimes leniency is granted. This is why we usually ping the relevant editors days before the nomination times out, to give them time to address everything. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0 and TSventon: Apologies, I keep getting distracted every time I try to look at that nom. I'd rather one of you two stepped in.--Launchballer 05:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a deeper look. I just wanted to be sure that the GPT and copyright points that had been raised earlier were no longer impediments to an eventual promotion. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on this brief discussion, I would say that unless the nominator is proactively addressing the concerns that were previously raised, this may be a good example of a case where we simply let the nom TIMEOUT (per my interpretation of the intended purpose of TIMEOUT, as discussed above). Does this work for you? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this one broken, based on the first line? Template:Did you know nominations/Archives of the Impossible — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Not anymore.--Launchballer 18:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that the first literary work published in Alabama criticized a participant in the Battle of Burnt Corn?

@Dofftoubab, Yakikaki, Maximilian775, and Bunnypranav: This hook includes quite an exceptional claim ("first literary work published in Alabama"), which is only cited to a single source. Per WP:DYKHOOKCITE, such an exceptional claim would require exceptional sourcing. Are there other sources confirming that the poem was indeed the first literary work published in Alabama, and are there no possible counterexamples to this claim?

Given that this is going to run in two days, I've also bumped the hook off to Prep 5 (scheduled to run on the 26th) to give us more time to discuss this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't make that claim. It makes the even more exceptional claim that it was the first literary work produced in the geographic area of present-day Alabama. The source itself makes the claim "The first published imprint known from the region now called Alabama". I think no one in the three centuries prior of European presence, and the millennia of indigenous habitation making a literary work is... a claim, as the article makes, and the hook is making a stronger claim than its source. The hook source was also not reviewed in the review, as it is offline, with it being accepted in good faith. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, going back and reading the article on the Battle of Burnt Corn, I can see where using "became the first literary work produced in what is now Alabama" can't really be verified. If it was reworded to say "became the first literary work published in what is now Alabama," it would line up with the hook. Would I be "allowed" to change that in the Battle of Burnt Corn article now, or would that change this current discussion? Thanks for helping out! Dofftoubab (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dofftoubab, "Would I be "allowed" to change that" yes, absolutely. The best case result when pointing out errors is that the articles get improved. And nothing at DYK can prevent people from bringing the articles more in line with core content policies. "produced" could apply to various diaries and letters that were produced in modern-day Alabama by Spanish and French writers but published in Europe. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Good deal. Changed the wording in the article to reflect the hook and the overall idea I meant to convey in the initial writing. Thanks! Dofftoubab (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've not found any counter examples, but this being the first published literary work in the modern-day Alabama portion of the Mississippi Territory is also stated in the article on Lewis Sewall from the Encyclopedia of Alabama, the the University of Alabama Libraries Special Collection's biography of Sewall, and Page 16 of Philip D. Beidler's First Books: The Printed Word and Cultural Formation in Early Alabama. Dofftoubab (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems false as written. Limiting it to English publication, a press was taken to Alabama in 1811 and set up in in Fort Stoddert to print The Mobile Centinel newspaper beginning in May 1811. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I edited my comment above to include "literary" work. Hopefully that offers some clarification. From what the article says, it seems as if the The Mobile Centinel reproduced news from other national papers and included a "circular" from a local writer. The poem by Sewall that satirized James Caller's participation in the Battle of Burnt Corn is considered to be the first literary work (relating to artistic writing) published in modern-day Alabama. At least from what I can find. Dofftoubab (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If there are indeed several sources for that claim, those need to be added to the article to make the claim more credible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added some more sources to the article. Thanks for your help/suggestions! Dofftoubab (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dofftoubab, just following up. I appreciate the sources and have used them to slightly expand the sections below:

• Alabama literature#Early accounts (1539-1819)
• History of Alabama#European colonization

They now mention the poem, link to this article, and offer the context around the lack of printing in Alabama prior to the 1810s. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for expanding those! Dofftoubab (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the first time I see all DYK entries be devoted to the same subject tied to a particular date, so it seems like a rather special treatment of this particular subject. It will also be a bad idea if the same treatment is granted to other subjects (and almost every day of the year can be connected to some subject, anniversary, holiday and so on). The attraction of DYKs is in their randomness and diversity, showcasing variety is also a major goal of the section, and having all DYKs be connected to the same subject automatically following from the date is the opposite of variety. ~2025-31121-91 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

we do this fairly often. (have started to compile a list in my sandbox, but I have a terrible memory...) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

In the past year we have done at least International Women's Day and 50th anniversary of Papua New Guinean independence and Bastille Day and Halloween and April Fool's Day and Christmas. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

International Women's Day!! how could I forget... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, never seen someone link to archive.org snapshots of the Main Page – as long as you know we have archives? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Idk, those are straightforward and organized, but I like seeing how different parts of the main page handled the days. Like International Women's Day also had a featured article slot, but not In the News. Then ITN ran a Papua New Guinea headline, but not TFA. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah! Those are at Wikipedia:Main Page history. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks, I knew we could see the Main Page for yesterday and tomorrow but didn't know that we had snapshots like that, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. I am a proponent of doing more themed sets, not less. It's also a great directed writing exercise on the level of groups, as it requires many people working towards a similar goal in a short period of time, requiring collaboration at some level of the process for it to succeed. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not so enthused about themed sets either because variety is usually more interesting. But... it's only an occasional feature. I do like themed sets for major holidays because those are fun. We only do it roughly 7 days out of the year (four holidays and roughly three one-offs). I wouldn't want to see the number of days like this expand beyond 7 days across the year because it would shut out articles in other content areas unfairly. The articles featured in these sets are often not new (we allow them to be time extended for these days), and prep for these days is more work, and I think contributes to the backlog. The level we do it at now is fine, and importantly sustainable.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hook is:

• ... that Shockwave at Six Flags Great America was the first roller coaster to turn riders upside down seven times?

Just want to get confirmation that we are satisfied with the "first" sourcing here, a local newspaper: https://www.newspapers.com/article/evansville-courier-and-press-roller-coas/185324977/ and the quote is "it turns you upside down a record seven times". That doesn't quite feel like enough to me but I could go either way.

There is another approved hook, albeit wordy, that can be swapped in.

@Plighting Engineerd, Hog Farm, and Bunnypranav: courtesy ping. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

An alternate source is https://coastercritic.com/2017/09/29/remembering-shockwave-six-flags-great-america/ (written by an established subject matter expert), which states, "This record-breaking roller coaster from Arrow Dynamics opened in 1988 as the world’s tallest and fastest looping ride, breaking the inversion count of then-holder Vortex (6) with seven." Plighting Engineerd (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Another first hook; unclear to me if consensus was sought.

• ... that the 110th U.S. Open Cup final was the first in the tournament's history to have an all-women team of referees?

Source is ESPN via AP.

• "Nashville beats Austin in U.S. Open Cup for 1st major trophy". ESPN. Associated Press. October 1, 2025. Retrieved October 3, 2025.
• "The final featured an all-women on-field officiating crew for the first time that included referee Tori Penso and assistants Brooke Mayo and Kathryn Nesbitt."

This one seems fine to me.

@SounderBruce, Jon698, and Royiswariii: courtesy pings. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of the first hook rule. I believe that this one is of more note than ones for biographical articles. There is also a dearth of good hook material in this article. Jon698 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Helen Mulholland, who says her parents never drank, is the first woman master blender in the history of Irish whiskey?

@CaptainAngus, Saltymagnolia, and Theleekycauldron: This is a "first" hook, so this is the usual sanity check for such hooks. Given that it is a strong claim, yet it only has one reference, I would like to see more references confirming the "firstness". Incidentally, I did find it weird that our article on master blender does not mention Mulholland, although this does not affect the nomination or the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: It's a fair comment, and I added a few more references to the claim in the article. Also, the master blender article does mention Mulholland, she's listed in the Notable People section (which I added back in October after creating the article for Mulholland). Let me know your thoughts? Thanks! CaptainAngus (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Weird, I was checking it earlier and didn't see her name. Maybe I misspelled it when using CTRL+F. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking at the nom in Prep 1, Template:Did you know nominations/Deliverance (collection), with a view to possibly moving it up to Queue 3, but I found I couldn't check the hook source because it's behind a paywall. Should it have been a requirement for the nominator to have given the quote from the source that verifies the hook in the nom? We've removed the "AGF" approval so my understanding is that reviewers should be given all the information they need to check the hook?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DYKHOOK says that a quote from the source must be provided if needed (although the nom cites Vogue?). Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Premeditated Chaos, and MCE89: who are probably more lucid than I am at the moment.--Launchballer 16:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - I meant to link to the hook, it's this one in Vogue - [7] - as far as I can tell you need a subscription to get to the hook fact here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It's in Archive.ph.--Launchballer 16:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Vogue is weird, sometimes they let you in without a subscription, sometimes they have a fit. It's totally arbitrary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

i got through that paywall by blocking JS, that works a good 60% of the time, every time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. When I reviewed the source I didn't get hit with a paywall, so I was able to check it myself without needing to ask for a quote and assumed it would be accessible for others as well (might have been a limited free articles or geoblocking thing?). But the quote supporting the hook fact is: It takes a showman like Alexander McQueen to get the lifeblood pumping back into fashion performance. His show—staged in the Salle Wagram, a nineteenth-century Parisian dance hall—was an exuberantly hilarious reenactment of Sydney Pollack’s Depression-era film They Shoot Horses, Don't They?...The show reached its climax as a lone exhausted dancer in a silver sequined gown mock-expired center stage. MCE89 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, MCE89 that's understandable then. I just didn't want to raise it as a concern if it isn't the current policy to require quotes in these circumstances! Although now that you've provided the quote, I might have a minor quibble to raise - is it really accurate to describe "a lone exhausted dancer in a silver sequined gown mock-expired center stage" as having "danced until they collapsed"? I would say if the expiring is "mock", then it isn't really a real "collapse" as such? Pinging @Premeditated Chaos: as well for a bit of guidance on that point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

We elide things in the name of brevity and interest all the time at DYK. Is it really necessary to stop to put our nerd glasses on and say, in the hook, "um, actually, the people in the performance were only pretending to collapse for the sake of the fictional performance"? An interested reader can click through and find out what was going on.

That being said, since I forgot Vogue only mentioned Elson's collapse, here are some quotes for models, plural, collapsing: The pace slows, and the participants pile up, climbing over one another and sinking to the floor in a heap of exhaustion. from Gleason's Alexander McQueen: Evolution, p. 116; and One model...was caught by her partner as she fell, before being carried off...the dishevelled dancers expended any residual energy in attempting kicks that sent them to the ground. from Bethune in Alexander McQueen, p. 315. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC, Very Polite Person, and Bunnypranav: "... that the Sjölejonet-class (example pictured), Sweden's first indigenous submarine design, featured rotating torpedo tubes and disappearing guns?"

I don't see the word 'indigenous' in the source.

ref 3 has “The Royal Swedish navy had been building submarines since 1908, but the first fully indigenous design, the Sjölejonet Class…” 1brianm7 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I was looking at ref2 instead of ref3. I should've used the source provided in the nom rather than the article, as I haven't promoted a prep in a month. This was my 3rd prep-queue promotion. JuniperChill (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph, TarnishedPath, and Dclemens1971: that David Avraham Voluck, a Chabad Jew and Native tribal judge, credits Alaska Native peoples with inspiring him to become more observant in his own faith?

Which part of this source verifies the hook fact?

JuniperChill (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

JC, see this source. "During this time, David was also privileged to work with David Case co-authoring the revision of the legal treatise “Alaska Natives and American Laws”. His experience with the Native peoples awakened a renewed interest in his own culture and history, and David took a two-year sabbatical from the practice of law to attend the Rabbinical College of America, focusing on Talmudic and Jewish Legal Studies." TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you TP! I'm already getting pretty tired after spending over 30 mins promoting prep2 so I'll need to take a pause. JuniperChill (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and Dclemens1971: ... that Mariame Clément's 2023 production of Mozart's Don Giovanni features the title character sitting on a giant cream cake?

I don't see the words "giant cream cake" on the article. JuniperChill (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I did until this "trim". - I would prefer some other hook, about a more recent production, over this little bit, and said so in the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

ps: The present version also has a grammar mistake caused by the "trim" of several things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'll go ahead and restore the "giant cream cake" as it was removed by someone uninvolved with DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the nom, I'm not sure why this hook was approved, as it seems to be of the same type as the one which was rejected. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

As a fan of Better Call Saul (see "Cobbler" for further info), I voiced my minor objections to the cake hook on the nom's user page, but I was ignored. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I was not the nom, Storye book was. The original hook idea did not seem suitable since it seemed to be complicated and did not focus much on Clément herself. Arguably, the same could be said about the cream cake angle, but at least it seemed to be more "eye-catching" and interesting than the previous angle, so the "it's less about Clément" issue was less of a big deal. As for Viriditas's original objection, I told him that his original objection may not have been obvious to non-fans of Better Call Saul, so I did not see it as a problem. However, if the issue is that it had the same problem as the original angle, then that would be more relevant.

Taking the hook at the article again, there doesn't seem to be anything else that stands out as hooky apart from her dissertation. The "freezing the tableau in time" angle might be hard to explain or at least express in a hook, and the cream cake angle was objected to. The previous proposals did not really explain the "freezing" point in a layperson-friendly way, so their hookiness suffered. The only other option I can see right now is something like:

• ... that prior to becoming an opera director, Mariame Clément worked on a dissertation focusing on medieval Persian miniatures?

Admittedly, I'm sure that the article creator will object to that angle, but unless an editor, perhaps 4meter4 can help express the freezing tableau angle more effectively, this seems to be the only thing left in the article that's usable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Here we have an article about one of the best story-tellers on the present opera scene, and you claim that saying something about her unconnected dissertation is more about herself? Instead of her very personal kind of story-telling? Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, given that this hook is scheduled to go live tomorrow, I would be fine with a bumping off or a pull until there is agreement on a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

For those of us who are still learning the process (and lingua franca) here, what is the difference between "a bumping off" and "a pull" in DYK-speak? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Bumping off means moving the relevant hook to a later set. This is usually to give more time for editors to discuss issues. A pull means to remove a hook from a Queue or Prep entirely and to put it back to WP:DYKN. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I think its time to remove this hook from queue2 and replace it with another. I cant because the queue is admin protected (although I have template editor). I was away because my time zone is GMT. Perhaps i could ping the @DYK admins: about this. JuniperChill (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Does that mean that to "pull" a nom reverses its promotion entirely? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Gulp. Pretty strong medicine, that! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer it, because it keeps the discussion in one place. I'm just the writer of the article, not the nominator. I was happy with the original proposal but all ALTs seem not to do justice to what this woman does unusually well. How is her dissertation supposed to be interesting, I asked above, but received no answer. Look. - I urge an admin pulling to please place it back in the list of noms awaiting approval. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That's lovely. Astoundingly innovative work. Thanks for sharing the link! As for the procedure at DYK, I'm still a bit wet behind the ears (as is evidenced by this very discussion), but it seems terribly wasteful and inefficient (and a tad disrespectful) at this late stage to bin all of the time that was put in to seeing the nom through to promotion (not to mention all of the subsequent work that's been done here by the technical folks) by dint of a few keystrokes. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The other option could be to just move the hook to a later set instead of an outright pull. It's really up to an admin to decide at this point. There is opposition to the current hook, so either way it will probably have to change.

For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to the "freezing" angle, my main concern now is how to word it in such a way that a layperson could easily understand it and find it interesting. Right now I feel like the proposals made in the nomination did not do that job well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

And now the hook is no longer in any prep/queue. And the nom is still closed. Perhaps this could mean the nom should reopen? (as a side note, i cant believe all 3 of my prep-queue promotions were from P2 to Q2.) JuniperChill (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It's up to a prep maker to move it back to a prep or to reopen the nomination. This is a weird case as there is opposition to the cream cake angle, but a few editors, including the nominator, are fine with it. In any case, we still need to agree on a hook, whether it be Cl3phact0's proposal, my proposal, or perhaps a reword of the frozen tableau angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Pulling doesn't undo the review; once the issues brought up here are resolved, the nomination can be returned to prep fairly easily via script. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's a relief! It sounded pretty harsh and draconian (or, perhaps I should say "blunt and imprecise"). Quite stress-inducing and rather off-putting, really.

Probably another instance where DYK nomenclature – both "to pull" and "to bump off" (and how these should/shouldn't be used) ought to be made clear somewhere in the DYK instructions/guidelines. Fewer vagaries = less misunderstanding.

Also, shouldn't “pulling” be used in fairly limited situations where some actual fault in the article or the hook has been discovered post-promotion? Its use simply to cancel noms for subjective reasons or personal preference shouldn’t be accepted (as this effectively annuls the work of the nominator and reviewer). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have come late to this, due to recent broadband issues (now resolved, I hope). I see no objection to the cream cake hook, because it is certainly about Clément herself as a director: she did a quirky thing by putting that scene onstage. I have no objection to the freezing-a-tableau-onstage hook, because that is about Clément herself as a director doing another quirky thing onstage. The point about the frozen tableau hook is that it is a curiosity-clickbait – one wants to know what exactly happened onstage. I have now explained what "frozen tableau" means, in the article. Storye book (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This might work: ... that Don Giovanni sits on a giant cream cake in Mariame Clément's 2023 production of the Mozart opera? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You are right that it is confusing that the hook is in no prep but the nomination is closed. Thank you for the suggestion, but this order of the same fact doesn't work well, because someone will tell you that readers don't know Don Giovanni, and it's anyway better to have the bold subject upfront. Don Giovanni, the character, should not be italic, but the opera, which makes it more difficult. The frozen tableau of the bride about to sign but - much later - not doing it, seems a much more original idea than some simple cake effect which may have been the scenic designer's idea. (I heard Così fan tutte from La Scala on radio last night.) Help with wording it welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Not knowing Don Giovanni (italic or not) shouldn't really be a terminal impediment. Conveniently, this is an encyclopaedia, so we have a handy article on the subject just one click away. That said, if you give me a rough thread of an idea, I'll try to help spin it into gold. (I like hooks.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I am with you regarding the "click away" view, however, some in this thread have argued differently, over years. See above attempt to bring in her dissertation. If we keep discussing here, Storye book's hook in the nom (trimmed) was

ALT0e: ... that when Mariame Clément directed Mozart's Così fan tutte, she froze a wedding tableau in time, and then restarted it later?

We could add that the freezing happens during the overture, and the restart shortly before the end, for more suspense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This might work ALT0f: ... that a Mariame Clément production of Mozart's Così fan tutte freezes a scene during the opera's overture and doesn't restart it until the finale? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer Cl3phact0's wording as it actually makes the main point clear; I think the "froze in time then restarted it later" wording failed to properly convey the actual point. If promoted, it would need to change "doesn't" to "does not" since WP discourages contractions, and maybe "2025" could be added somewhere, but other than that it should be fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggested that. She isn't the producer, thought, but the director, and "wedding" seems to be needed.

ALT0g: ... that when Mariame Clément directed Mozart's Così fan tutte she froze a wedding tableau during the overture and restarted it in the finale? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I have an idea for how to deal with there being more nominations than DYK can take, so I'm going to put it here so somebody can tell me it's already been discussed, is completely unworkable, technically unfeasible, is an affront to every single one of the 5 pillars, violates a majority of policies, guidelines and essays and/or is in breach of one or more provisions of the Berne Convention.

When the DYK backlog is being discussed, the two most popular angles to approach it from are DYKINT and DYKTIMEOUT. The reasons for this, I believe, is that in the case of the first it results in, well, more interesting hooks, and in the case of the second the appeal is in its indiscriminate and objective nature. Unfortunately, DYKTIMEOUT is too inflexible, so mostly ends up being ignored, and DYKINT is too subjective. My solution is this: when a nomination is reviewed as usual, a section opened at the bottom of the nomination page for people to leave their signature to endorse the hook, but only based on the hook's interestingness. Prep builders are strongly encouraged (not required, as they still need to have some leeway to make a good set, but encouraged) to only take into consideration the number of signatures a hook has, and not the date it was nominated. Hooks that aren't deemed to be interesting by enough people in time are swallowed by the void of DYKTIMEOUT.

I think we'd be getting the best of both worlds here. This way, everyone gets to judge interestingness by their own subjective criteria, and you can endorse as many hooks as you like. There aren't vastly more hooks a day than we can run, so we wouldn't be losing too much, and it would be by a very objective criteria (2 months and you're done). Another added side benefit is that this might attract more people to DYK who want to do this simple task to make the main page more interesting, and might stick around and help with other things too.

Thoughts? Either that or do that two 6-hook sets a day thing and recruit more queuers idk lol JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Too random and inflexible. Also, given that many nominations have multiple alt hooks, and many hooks get modified over time, I don't see how this is workable. Gatoclass (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The multiple hook thing did occur to me, yes. I suppose you'd vote based on the hook you find most interesting, and because the hook opens to endorsement only after it's approved that would only leave edge cases where hooks are sent back from prep, so maybe not that complicated? Also, how do you mean random and inflexible?

(Not arguing here or anything, I am fully ready to shut up about this if it turns out to be unworkable. Just discussion.) JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You say hooks wouldn't be !voted on before they are approved. But once they are approved, they have already passed and are not subject to TIMEOUT. So the !votes would serve no purpose. Gatoclass (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oops. Yeah, I guess you'd then have to modify TIMEOUT to measure the time until the hooks get promoted to prep, or come up with a new rule to discard hooks not deemed interesting enough in time. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. I would like to formally request that Template:Did you know nominations/Urain Ge be displayed on December 16, 2025. Thank you! M. Billoo 01:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: Put it in WP:SOHA. For what it's worth, I'm surprised the The Fate of Ophelia's date request wasn't entertained.--Launchballer 06:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

In that specific nomination's case, the date request no longer made sense because the promoted hook no longer mentioned the singer by name. Add to the fact that her hooks have had... let's just say not the best reputation over at DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, as Naruto pointed out in the nomination discussion, The Fate of Ophelia hook would have required consensus at DYKT for a date more than six weeks in the future and I didn't see a discussion on that. Plus, it fit well into the prep where I placed it. I've moved the Urain Ge hook into the SOHA for 16 December. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that the first literary work published in Alabama criticized a participant in the Battle of Burnt Corn?

Just the standard "first" hook check here really. I haven't looked in detail yet, but how certain are we that this "first" claim is accurate?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion above. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The previous list was archived less than an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 27. We have a total of 409 nominations, of which 296 have been approved, a gap of 113 nominations that has decreased in size by 54 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Erich Dieckmann (furniture designer)
• September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Nimsgern
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Asian baby girl (ALT needs reviewing)
• September 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Yonki-no-kai Productions
• September 29: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Boeing machinists' strike
• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Turkey water crisis
• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/10 Things I Want to Do Before I Turn 40
• October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Irene (diplomat)
• October 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Queen's Theatre, Hornchurch
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The End of the Story
• October 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Trouble (comics)
• October 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Bad End Theater
• October 16: Template:Did you know nominations/The Patient's Playbook
• October 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Evgeny Ketov
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1961
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie Mitchell (chef)
• October 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Granny's Wonderful Chair
• October 19: Template:Did you know nominations/2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Vitaly Nalivkin
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/The Little Hours

Other nominations

• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Edington
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Lim Joo Hock
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 NBA illegal gambling prosecution
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Group
• October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Media capture
• October 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Anabel Montesinos
• October 26: Template:Did you know nominations/My Choice (film)
• October 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Fluier
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Haru Urara (Umamusume)
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Jessica Forrest
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Niniek Kun Naryatie

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) 15:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Bumping this since so many listed nominations still need to be reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There certainly seems to have been a sharp drop off in the number of nominations being made. I'm guessing last month's GA and WIG events had something to do with it, any other reasons?--Launchballer 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that, after judges withheld the first prize in both 1990 and 1995, the XIV International Chopin Piano Competition finally crowned Yundi as its winner in 2000?

Minor point, but this hook implies that the 14th award should have been made in 1990 and 1995, but was in fact not awarded until 2000 due to there being no awards in 1990 and 1995. In fact though, the 1990 ceremony was the 12th and the 1995 was the 13th, with those two ceremonies not having a winner, rather than the 14th being repeatedly deferred. @EleniXDD, Surtsicna, and Dclemens1971:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru I slightly altered the display text of the wikilink, which should address this concern. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Teach me English: can we say "crowned" when he got a wreath? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: The hook sounds alright to me? Of course, there are 2 alternative hooks available: Talk:XIV International Chopin Piano Competition EleniXDD※Talk 01:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a language issue. "Crowned" does not literally mean being crowned in this case. Gerda's native language is not English, so maybe she was unfamiliar with this context. For example, "the Los Angeles Dodgers have been crowned MLB champions after their World Series victory over the Toronto Blue Jays." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you for the explanation. EleniXDD※Talk 01:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but Gerda's English is better than that of most Americans. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation for which I asked. (Or how did you interpret: "Teach me language"?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 Thanks for the effort. EleniXDD※Talk 01:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 thanks for the fix, although I have tweaked it again slightly, just to move the link elsewhere, to avoid a MOS:EGG issue:

• ... that, after judges withheld the first prize in both 1990 and 1995, the International Chopin Piano Competition finally crowned Yundi as its winner in 2000?

  - looks like the bold link is pointing to International Chopin Piano Competition rather than the actual specific event target.

• ... that, after judges withheld the first prize in both 1990 and 1995, the International Chopin Piano Competition finally crowned Yundi as its winner in 2000?

  - gets around this issue. Let me know if any issues! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that the idea for a birdwatching documentary was conceived while one of its creators was high on marijuana?

Maybe this is nitpicking, but the source line which references the drug use says "When Owen Reiser found his brother on the porch with a bong placed on the family’s bird guide, he knew something was up". This does not directly say that he was "high on marijuana", even if it is implied, merely that he had a bong next to him and "something was up"... so I wonder if WP:DYKDEFINITE is met here. @Verylongandmemorable, Ethmostigmus, and Staraction:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

From St. Louis on the Air: Well, as it says in the movie, one day I just got stoned, and I found the family's bird guidebook, a book that we've had for as far as I can remember, just laying around the house. Could be added as a source into the article :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru @Theleekycauldron Yep, I'd looked at the St. Louis on the Air source, which was already added into the article when I reviewed it! Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify this more. The source in the article this one! is the same as the one @Theleekycauldron sent, just in an audio format instead. The timestamps (roughly?) line up with the transcript leeky provided.

This was also an issue brought up by Ethmostigmus, the initial reviewer in the DYK nom. In the Audubon source they provided when I was reviewing, the Audubon interviewer's question includes, "The documentary offers a pretty breezy explanation for how this whole thing got started, involving Quentin smoking weed and marveling at a bird guide book."; then, part of Quentin's response is, "It was pretty quick after getting stoned and identifying one woodpecker in the backyard and deciding it’s time to go for it."

Together, I thought this verified the hook enough for WP:DYKDEFINITE. If not, please let me know; I'm quite new to promoting hooks, so I'm definitely going to make some many mistakes while doing this. Thanks, Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Staraction: thanks for that, that certainly clears up the fundamental question I had as to whether this was verified. The only thing that needs to be done now is to make sure the line is properly cited in the article, so that other readers can find the same information you've told me here. If we're to verify it by listening to the audio, then ideally you should use a {{cite media}} type of citation, which should include the exact number of minutes into the podcast at which we're to listen. Alternatively, if using a transcript, also providing the location would be good since it's quite long. Including part of the quote mentioned by Leeky above in the |quote= part of the template would also be useful so readers know that they're looking for the line "one day I just got stoned". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru, thanks for your response. I added a timestamp and a quote from the audio podcast with {{template:RP}} (see diff). From what I saw, all the other times the same source is cited, it appears in the text, so I kept the cite web there, and split the hook citation to a new, cite audio, ref. Now the article looks like it has a duplicate citation. Is there any way to fix this? Thanks, and sorry for the bother! Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru, just checking — does the current version of the article meet all expectations? Want to make sure everything's good to go :) Thanks, Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Staraction: yes, it's all good - the extra info you've added to the source has resolved my concerns over this. Many thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This was directly addressed in my review and was very easy to independently verify. Probably best to check these yourself in future. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised to see this hook on the mainpage. As someone who has worked quite a bit on food history articles, almost every food I've ever worked on has had a disputed origin. This would fail WP:DYKINT, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If you think it should be pulled ASAP, bring it up at ERRORS. Yes, I'm aware it's not supposed to be for interest-related stuff, but it would at least get more eyes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be pulled. I just think it's odd that everyone acts all concerned about DYKINT, and the most non-unusual hook is sitting at the top of the main DYK page section. Just wanted to comment. Disputes over the origins of a food are typical. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Does everyone know that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fairly common knowledge. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

My vague belief is that picture hooks get less attention as reviewer focus goes towards evaluating the picture. CMD (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

From experience, many reviewers (admittedly myself included) sometimes forget to review the picture at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

And clocking in at 1,157.0 views per hour, this was 5th best performing hook of the month so far. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Well done! De gustibus non est disputandum, which, it would seem, is part of our DYKINT problem (but who am I to judge). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

How well would the hook have done if it had run from Saturday to Sunday instead of from Monday to Tuesday? Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

How well hooks tend to do on different days of the week definitely seems like the sort of thing somebody would have collected data on. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Let’s hope someone chimes in with the info. Just eyeballing it, the hook ran in a prime slot during the week, covering major time zones during the work hours when more people were glued to their machines. On weekends, less so, with more people out and about. Of course, that might not matter as much given mobile devices. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It also had an attractive picture of food; people like food. Especially on Mondays, when you're kind of tired. I think it's an evolution thing. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you’re right. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A picture + food + a prime timeslot = likely high interest, no doubt. Just a guess, but perhaps linguistically, when the subject of an article is unto itself an unusual word or an intriguing curiosity that may be unknown to many readers (e.g., "chole bhature" ... what's that?), the rest of the hook being less of a reach (or just plain simpler English) may be an advantage.-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Four things take priority on how many people click on a hook, in order:

• Number one, of course, are pictures—they get more interest (and more interesting/attractive images obviously get more interest).
• Number two is concision: shorter hooks get more interest. It normally doesn't matter if a hook contains a very intriguing fact if it natters on for 200 characters.
• Number three is where the hook is placed in the set. The quirky slot gets more attention than the slot immediately above it. When promoting sets, I knew this, and filled the fourth to eighth slots with the least interesting hooks in the set.
• Number four is the one that gathers all the attention—the "subjectivity" of a hook being "unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". Everyone overcomplicates this. Variations of the xkcd quartz trap are very common here—nominators go one direction ("yes, everyone will obviously be hugely intrigued by this obscure chap doing some normal thing in a boring location!"), while reviewers go in the other direction ("who could possibly think that a food's origin being disputed is interesting? everyone knows that always happens.").

  I like to think I have a good grasp on keeping distance between what I find interesting and what most people do, hence why I like to avoid promoting long hooks on boring topics. The one that people always get tripped up by is popular music—no one is interested in "random band sang song" hooks, no matter if they're your favouritest band everrrrrrrrr and everyone should love them.

Everything else mentioned above is irrelevant. Day of the week, picture of food (on a Monday or not), unusual words—all subservient to the above (although if used correctly the latter can fall under WP:DYKINT). Yes, there are also smaller things that grab hook interest that I haven't covered, but they come up infrequently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

While the picture thing is largely accurate, there have been exceptions in the past. For example, I have seen some picture hooks that got rather mediocre numbers for a picture hook (say, around 5,000 views during its run). In some cases, one would argue that the hook would have completely flopped had it not been in the picture slot. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

That’s quite literally the opposite of an exception. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

All of your bullet points above (and related observations) ought to be in our doc somewhere, especially: avoid promoting long hooks on boring topics. Best thing I've read here all day. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The point of DYKTIMEOUT was that nominations that have lasted too long before being approved should be allowed to be closed at any time. However, as time has gone on, we have been seeing more and more exceptions to it, almost like instruction creep. If we are going to let nominations last well beyond the two-months mark anyway, then that defeats the whole point of DYKTIMEOUT. I can understand exceptional cases, such as nominations that were just pulled from Prep/Queue and need some time to discuss urgent matters. However, for most cases, it is not ideal if such nominations have lasted so long without issues being addressed.

Given the increasing creep with regards to DYKTIMEOUT, should we go back to being stricter about it? Maybe we can include an explicit appeal process where any nomination closed under DYKTIMEOUT may be brought to WT:DYK for appeal, but otherwise, any nomination that is older than two months old is in danger of closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

How many nominations are oustide the two months? TarnishedPath^talk 22:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see two in the approved list. Do we really need to worry that much about two nominations? Is it as bad as before DYKTIMEOUT came in? TarnishedPath^talk 22:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I am mainly looking at DYKN, but right now there are two nominations that are outside the two month mark. One remains in limbo pending the resolution of its merge discussion, the other has already been reviewed and is just waiting for a final tick from the reviewer. The point is that, if the purpose of DYKTIMEOUT is to prevent nominations from languishing for too long, yet we still have nominations that go well beyond the two month mark (as opposed to only going beyond a few days), then it calls its effectiveness into question. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The main problem that WP:DYKTIMEOUT solves, as I see it, is boring hooks or controversial articles that no one is going to approve. However, the problem that we're facing right now is that we need more queues so we can run a week or two straight of 12-hour sets to get caught up on the backlog. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

it means we need to process more hooks, but I should stress that processing a hook doesn't necessarily mean running it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

and 12-hour runs requires a lot of labour that we don't currently have enough volunteers to maintain without burnout. TarnishedPath^talk 00:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of promoting prep2 to a queue and have approved Tropical Storm Pabuk. JuniperChill (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, I've just approved Template:Did you know nominations/Tropical Storm Pabuk (2024), however I can't approve Template:Did you know nominations/Arlan (Indonesian politician) as I suggested the alt hook. If someone is willing to review/approve the alt hook I suggested then I think we've resolved most of the DYKTIMEOUT issues? TarnishedPath^talk 00:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• I am not really seeing a significant problem. The policy is working fine. We reject most noms at the two month mark. The only ones getting an exemption are ones being held up due to merge/AFD. We reasonably don’t want to incentivise using AFD/merge as a way to purposefully sink a nom at DYK, so we do protect noms by giving a time extension in such cases. This was already determined through community discussion recently. The only other hook being held up is from a slow reviewer which frankly another reviewer could take over and knock out asap. It doesn’t need to be rejected and it isn’t really fair to the nominator to reject because the reviewer wasn’t timely. This latter issue doesn’t happen often and can be worked around without needing to create new policy. However if we were to do anything more… The only thing I can think of to discourage this would be to ban chronic late reviewers from nominating articles again at DYK (ie get your reviews done on time or you can’t participate at DYK anymore). That said, I can’t think of anyone who is consistently late.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't agree with giving a blanket hold for articles nominated for merge/AFD, but I can support it being implemented on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the merge or AFD was done to filibuster or to deliberately sink a nomination, then yes, that's reasonable. However, errors and issues about a nomination can be raised at any time: just because a nomination is old does not mean it should be immune from problems being pointed out. Most of the time, such issue raising is done in good faith, and saying raising issues late should not be allowed is almost like assuming bad faith on the part of the editor.

  The real question is if it is really feasible to keep nominations open indefinitely when a merge discussion is going on, especially when they sometimes last a while. Normally it is not a major problem since usually only one or at most two nominations at a time are affected, so timing them out does not affect the backlog much. However, it does raise the question on how long such nominations should be allowed to linger. With AFDs it's more understandable since they usually have predictable time limits (often no more than a week). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) I am not seeing a problem either. A recent nomination of mine that went over the limit was Template:Did you know nominations/Aline Sitoe Diatta, because it had been essentially halted for ten days. WP:DYKTIMEOUT clearly links to WP:EDITDISC, and WP:DYKCRIT clearly states "To some extent, DYK approval of a nomination is a subjective process." I really can't see how discretionary exceptions to a broad criterion can be seen as WP:CREEP; are you sure that's the page you mean Narutolovehinata5? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

    I mean to say that any exemptions to DYKTIMEOUT should already be covered by "at the discretion of nominators and reviewers" and "nominations awaiting a review can wait." There's no need to elaborate on those rules further than perhaps minor clarifications. People tend to forget that DYKTIMEOUT is actually optional, hence "at the discretion of nominators and reviewers". A nomination that is already over two months old does not need to be marked for closure. It's not a must. Editors use their judgment on whether or not to time out a nomination. That's how it works. The real question should really be low long should a nomination be allowed to last beyond the two-month mark. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

    "The real question should really be low long should a nomination be allowed to last beyond the two-month mark." I think that "Editors use their judgment on whether or not to time out a nomination. That's how it [should] work." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: To avoid repetition and missed communication, this thread should probably be a sub-section of "DYK backlog and suggestions for DYK process improvement" (above) which is addressing the same topic. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Please also see proposal for revision here. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that there is interest in adding at least some exceptions to DYKTIMEOUT, is there support for an additional one? In this case, if a nomination that would normally have timed out, is only timing out because it was pulled from prep or queue, then perhaps such nominations could be given an extension? Or would that also count as WP:CREEP? My feeling is that it is indeed CREEP, but at the same time, it does feel like a rational exception. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This is already practice. If you want to codify it, sure, but I don't see much point. TarnishedPath^talk 08:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The point is that nobody really agrees what DYKTIMEOUT is for or how it should be applied. It is vague and imprecise (apparently by design), and therefore easily misused. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I've seen it applied when necessary. It mostly works and is there really that much of a problem? There's a sum total of 4 nominations awaiting approval which are past two months in age. Two of those either have current AFD or merge discussions ongoing. What exactly is the problem we are in search of a solution for? TarnishedPath^talk 09:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I sincerely believe that this is a problem. TIMEOUT used properly works fine. Nothing to fault. Used as a weapon, not so much. In conjunction with DYKINT, it's a roadmap to "Kafka's Circus Land" (and avoidable inefficiencies, occasional abuses, regrettable attrition – e.g., this, this, this, etc.). So, again yes, it looks like something that can be improved upon. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that, of all Baltimore virus groups, only double-stranded DNA viruses use the same replication-expression strategy as cellular life forms?

As someone with a very basic understanding of viruses, DNA, biology etc, but not really familiar with much of the detail, I am finding this hook quite incomprehensible. I have no idea what a replication-expression strategy is for example. The original hook said something like "that of all Baltimore virus groups, only double-stranded DNA viruses replicate the same way cellular life forms do?" which sounds much better, although I gather there's a technical reason why that's not accurate. I think this needs some more brainstorming anyway, to get a hook that's accessible to a broad audience. @AirshipJungleman29, Dclemens1971, and Surtsicna:  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Baltimore_classification where it was previously discussed and changed. TarnishedPath^talk 21:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but what of my point here? I think there is an interesting fact somewhere here, but readers won't be able to appreciate it because it's buried under very technical jargon. I'm not sure if there is a way to reword it that we can come up with here in the next 24 hours, otherwise I will reopen the nom and it can be brainstormd there.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that time is running out and this had already been discussed while in Prep/Queue, I've pulled the hook to give more time for a new hook to be proposed. Discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Velayinosu has not explained what is wrong with the originally approved hook, and I cannot say that I see what might be wrong with "replicate". Surtsicna (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Jack Fitzgerald was father of the South Australian House of Assembly?

Does this hook really meet WP:DYKINT? Someone has to be the father of the house, and it doesn't seem like this is a particularly remarkable thing to me, particularly as it's just a sub-national parliament... @Peacemaker67, TarnishedPath, and Dclemens1971:  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

+1, i think a new hook would be a good idea. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I promoted ALT0 because I thought it was interesting and it led me to read more about Fitzgerald and about South Australian government that I knew nothing about. It is of course the queue mover’s prerogative to pull the hook if they find it uninteresting, but if that’s the only reason for the pull there’s no point in arguing about the most subjective part of DYK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru, I also approved ALT2 from the nomination.

ALT2 ... that the deputy leader of the South Australian Labor Party, Jack Fitzgerald (pictured), had served as a quartermaster sergeant during the Second Boer War? TarnishedPath^talk 21:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

isn't it quite common for politicians to have served in the military? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It may have been in the past, I don't think it is quite so common these days. Most importantly we need to turn our minds to what our readers would think is common. TarnishedPath^talk 21:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, this isn't just service in the military, it's reaching the rank of quartermaster sergeant. TarnishedPath^talk 21:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

just off the top of my head, i can think of a living former U.S. president, the current vice president, current senator, recent former mayor and cabinet officer, and a current congressman, all commissioned officers. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just my Americanness, but I find the father of the house hook hooky; partly because I have never heard of the term before. To me it reads like he founded the assembly, which is of course not at all what that term means, but it is what Americans would take that turn of phrase to mean. Given the large percentage of readers from the USA on the English wiki, I do think the approved hook works and would grab American readers. It's certainly better than the quartermaster hook. I say leave it be. It's fine.4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

More than the interestingness, my main question is the ambiguity. To most people who are familiar with the context of "Father", as in "Founding Fathers" or "Father of [X]", they would think that it means that Fitzgerald founded the assembly, not that he was a beloved legislator.

I'm taking a look at the article right now and there are multiple possible options. One option could be about his ability to lift heavy weights with one hand to settle wagers. Rather than just saying that he was a quartermaster sergeant, maybe a hook about his actual activities during the war is also feasible.

In the meantime, I've moved the hook to Prep 2 (currently scheduled to run on November 30); this does mean that that there is now a gap that needs to be filled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That is why I also I approved ALT0. I know that there are probably more Aussies than Americans who are aware of the term, but my thinking was around the Americans that didn't and therefore the interestingness of the hook. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm really at a loss to see what the issue is with ALT2. The combination is very rare. Having served in the military used to be common in Australian parliamentarians including at state level, but not so any more. In fact, I am unaware of any current SA parliamentarian who has, and certainly very few have seen war service since the Malayan Emergency in the 1960s. In addition, this is the Second Boer War, hardly a huge war with hundreds of thousands of Australians participating. Only 1,500 from South Australia served there. Also, he's a Labor politician, not a conservative, and they are less likely to have served, given the influence of anti-conscriptionists etc in the Labor Party. AFAIK, only two South Australians have seen war service and subsequently led their party since 1857, and deputy leaders would be similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:DYKINT. If it is rare, does the general audience know this? If they do not, is that rarity effectively expressed in a hook? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Can't say I see that being consistently applied at DYK, TBH. How are the general audience to know something is rare, are we to find reliable sources of the rarity and include that in the supposedly brief hook? Is an explanation of how something is rare or unusual something that must be included in every article so that it can have a run at DYK? I've had hooks [8][9] run that just said "this guy won the Victoria Cross for doing X", it didn't include the fact that the Victoria Cross is the highest bravery award available to Australian soldiers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a subjective criterion so there will always be some controversy about how it is applied. The idea is that the main point or interestingness of an article should at least be evident. It may require some background knowledge, but it should not be reliant on knowledge that is only known by specialists or by a particular location. This does not mean that a hook cannot revolve around unfamiliar names and topics, especially when one of DYK's goals is to introduce them to readers. The idea is something like "even if I don't know who this person is or what they did, this sounds like a cool fact." Theleekycauldron wrote an essay a while ago that explained a rule of thumb in determining a hook's interest, although right now I don't have the link. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

you're either looking for this one or this one, not sure which :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, it was definitely the first one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This is another clear and glaring example of why DYKINT is a broken rule based in pure WP:crystalballing speculation of what 5+ million viewers will "think interesting", and should be removed. the controversy here is based on pure hot air and fearmongering that "not enough clicks will be generated and bad things WILL come to pass. Never mind that its all wp:navelgazing of a small subset of DYK regulars.--Kevmin § 04:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

As you have been a long-time vocal critic of DYKINT, if you want it to be phased out, you are free to start an RfC regarding that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

If we want to do a "person with job X also had job Y" hook, I think a new about his time as a miner is more interesting than the military service ALT2 (as others have noted, I do vaguely expect career crossover between the military and politics, but I do not expect politicians to do hard labour in the mines!) -- but I also found ALT0 perfectly intriguing because I wasn't sure what being a "father" meant in this context. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The original hook looks fine to me. I have never even heard of the title "father of the house", and I very much doubt the vast majority would have heard of it either, so I think the hook is sufficiently interesting. The fact that he served in the military is not in the least unusual, countless former military men have served in parliament, many with much higher rank than sergeant. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

But per Naruto's comment above regarding ambiguity, "a father" might be preferable to just "father". Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The original hook is great. Let's run it. This conversation is a time suck, and not needed.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. @Narutolovehinata5:, @Amakuru: There's a strong contingent of us calling foul on the use of DYKINT in this case. I suggest that we promote this rather than letting it sit in limbo.4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  @4meter4 It's still in Prep 2, so promotion is not necessary -- I hope the queue mover for that set will note this discussion and emerging consensus when doing checks on that set. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  @4meter4: OK then, so be it. I don't personally find it interesting, but that's not a rule I usually get hung up on it's a very subjective decision anyway! No objections from me to leaving it as is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  I would be okay with ALT0 as long as "father" was put inside quotes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Can the extra "a" be removed? Also, since "powerful" was removed due to paraphrasing issues, could "potent" be added, which is in the article currently, so it reads …that researchers accidentally discovered a potent new antibiotic in soil bacteria? Thriley (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Can you take a look? Thriley (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

i would have PROMO concerns about adding a non-neutral adjective based on science journalism, which is not known for the being most reliable of sources. did fix the typo, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The hook is cited to Nature, "one of the world's most-read and most prestigious academic journals." Thriley (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

the hook is cited to an auxiliary news service published on Nature's website. It is not cited to the peer-reviewed journal called Nature. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this article would be perfectly acceptable for DYK purposes- I've had hooks cited from articles in regional newspapers. Would have liked to have some adjective to describe how important this discovery is. Hookier that way too. Thriley (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

science journalism has a bad habit of playing up the novelty and potency of new discoveries, because they also know that it drives clicks. it might be reliable for a reader-accessible summary of basic facts and context, but it should not be used to make broad claims about reach or importance. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps for the hook for Autumn Colors on the Que and Hua Mountains, the hook should specify what year or century it was painted so that "the following seven centuries" has a bit of context. Would that be an ok change? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Water World Lloret has been described as "a favourite of foreign tourists" with 60% of visitors coming from outside Spain?

This is more of a sanity check than anything, but considering Spain's popularity among foreign tourists, is it really that much of a surprise that most of its visitors are foreign? I imagine the same could be said about other popular Spanish tourist destinations. I don't really see anything else hooky in the article, so I won't hold this from running, I just thought it was a bit of a "well, duh" hook. I can see why others might find it interesting, hence why this is just a sanity check. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that, after judges withheld the first prize in both 1990 and 1995, Yundi was finally crowned as the International Chopin Piano Competition's winner in 2000?

Is it just me, or is this hook a little confusing? It seems to imply that the judges withheld the prize from Yundi specifically. However, I can't find a way to adequately rewrite it (if indeed there is a problem). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even think the hook as written is that interesting. The point is supposed to be that Yundi was the first winner crowned in 15 years (since the previous two iterations did not award a First Prize winner). That is a more interesting point, but it is lost in the wording. Maybe changing it to either of this would work?

... that by winning the International Chopin Piano Competition in 2000, Yundi became the first pianist to be awarded the first prize in 15 years?

... that prior to Yundi winning the International Chopin Piano Competition in 2000, the competition's prior two iterations did not award a first prize winner?

Obviously this is a "first" hook, but at least it's one that's straightforward to prove. Either wording could probably still be wordsmithed, but this is more to give possible directions rather than to come up with a final wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

ALTc: ... that Yundi won the 2000 International Chopin Piano Competition, after 15 years without a first prize awarded?

ALTd: ... that Yundi won the 2000 International Chopin Piano Competition, after no first prize was awarded in 1990 and 1995? I prefer ALTd because people might assume they are held annually, 15 times without a first prize. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I would be okay with ALTd. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I like ALTc. I don't like ALTd. It seems like random years are picked and that the in-between years aren't addressed. It doesn't communicate that the prize isn't awarded annually, and seems like some sort of error is in the hook (even though that isn't the case). This is an example where getting too technical and pedantic sucks the interest right out of it.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, you have a point there. Is it important to note that the contest is not annual, or would explaining that only complicate the hook further? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Swapped in ALTc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Serbia's smallest passenger airport has only one year-round scheduled flight?

I noticed my hook was sent to prep, and in this form I feel like it's just not interesting? Small airport in small country has small number of flights? My original proposed hook was (imo) interesting by pointing out that the only destination is global aviation mega hub Istanbul, rather than some airport in Serbia for regional connectivity or whatever, but that isn't really there anymore. JustARandomSquid (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

As an avgeek myself, I actually find the current wording more interesting than the other proposal. A small airport being connected to a hub is not really unusual: it's even the norm in many places like the US. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess in the US it would be the nearest large American hub. But ok, I see two people agreeing it is interesting, so I guess I'm outvoted lol. Also, not sure if you get told this often enough @Narutolovehinata5, but great work on DYK in general, it's just a super stressful area of Wikipedia and your contributions mean a lot to be community! JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

As a not avgeek, I find the small airport is small angle interesting. Maybe make it more concise by just saying “Morava” instead of “Serbia’s smallest passenger” 1brianm7 (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I was going to trim the sentence "On his 21st birthday in 2011, he was gifted a present filled with food; on his 24th and 25th birthdays, in 2014 and 2015 respectively, he was given cakes." which I personally don't think is very encyclopedic coverage, when I realised that this would bring the article under 1500 bytes of prose. What is the right thing to do here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest trimming. @Guerreroast, BeanieFan11, and HurricaneZeta: - this needs attention.--Launchballer 23:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree on trimming. I don't think further expansion is possible, so I guess the hook can be cut from DYK. Roast (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Can I try to expand it? FWIW, I am also the author of Pattycake (gorilla). Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's possible to be expanded, would love it. Z E T A^C 23:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I looked on Google books and found Wasserman EA. As If By Design: How Creative Behaviors Really Evolve. Cambridge University Press; 2021. pp 205– 207, which is available via the Wikipedia Library and looks useful. There are further mentions in books that I did not investigate. TSventon (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Added a bit. Now 3448 characters (584 words). Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I trimmed it, but it could be trimmed further if you like, given that I've expanded a bit in other places. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Now at 3684 characters (621 words). Probably going to log off now, but at least that gives you folks a bit of breathing room to trim whatever you like now without worrying about length. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't oppose trimming, but I really liked the hook :( That said, yeah, doesn't seem encyclopedic. If it's below DYKCRIT, it can be cut. Z E T A^C 23:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit. Still going. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Currently 2869 characters (497 words). Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@JeBonSer: As you have more than 20 nominations, this needs a second QPQ.--Launchballer 23:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: 2nd QPQ  Done. Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Edington. JeBonSer (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, that works.--Launchballer 08:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)