Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B but exclusively talk pages instead of pings as well, and an increase to two weeks, allowing for extra-Wikipedia events. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:07, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option B, F or A (for B, a ping to the nominator suffices for me). Life happens, but that should not be a reason for reviewers and overworked promoters to be left hanging on the vine where there are other more engaged nominator submissions to choose from. Oppose C, D and E, because I am uncomfortable with squeezing nominators who are actively working to achieve compliance into an only one- or two-week window, and the status quo is unacceptable. StonyBrook _babble 12:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Up to the discretion of the relevant administrator, sometimes the nominator's attention may not be needed, in which case they should not be required to reply. If it is needed, the relevant administrator should choose when enough time passed using their best judgment. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Options D and B: One month is a long time, and close within a week and/or without a talk page ping is too harsh so oppose A, C, and F. Therefore, two weeks is enough and a reminder ping on user talk page is a good idea. M. Billoo 17:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Options F and B, provided a talk page message is required (not everyone has pings enabled, so I oppose Option A). Oppose Option C or D given concerns about the excessive time crunch, and Option E given the backlog would be worse if we did nothing. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Option E, or Option G (or modified Option B) GLL makes a good point here. I think we can only close nomination for editor who are active during those one or two week period. For inactive users, I think WP:DYKTIMEOUT is enough. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option E Allows for editors who may be busy or new to editing who might leave for weeks at a time. It also is helpful for the editors who could possibly suffer from terrible ADHD. Thriley (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Conclusion?

Since the RfC tag has just been removed, maybe it's time to close this and determine a consensus? Or should I list this at WP:CR? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I already listed it at WP:CR a while ago when there hadn't been any comments for days. TarnishedPath^talk 08:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6 (August 31)

Rhoda Roberts (nom)

• ... that arts trailblazer and cultural leader Rhoda Roberts became the first Indigenous Australian television presenter in 1989?

@Beta Beta Beta, Laterthanyouthink, and TarnishedPath: "arts trailblazer" certainly seems less neutral than it could be, but I'm primarily concerned about the article's use of the International Business Times, which is designated as generally unreliable. And, as TarnishedPath predicated in the nomination, I'm going to poke at the "first" claim — sorry! (: More specifically, why is the source for that statement, Satellite Dreaming, reliable? —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69, my research led me to believe the first claim was solid, more eyes looking at these things is never a bad thing though. Regarding the "arts trailblazer" bit, remove it. Regarding IBT, I'll leave that to @Laterthanyouthink to replace as they're better acquainted with the subject than myself. TarnishedPath^talk 06:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Beta Beta Beta, TechnoSquirrel69, and TarnishedPath:

- I had no idea that IBT was a dodgy source, although in this case pretty much everything that was written there is corroborated elsewhere, so I have found other sources for everything that I used it for. Yes, "trailblazer" does sound like a bold claim, but the word in one of its forms appears in almost every article written about her after her death (and probably a few before that too) - although I did not use it in the article. She really was one of a kind in Australia, extremely highly thought of by all and sundry. Happy to drop it on consensus.

I'm not sure what the problem is about Satellite Dreaming Revisited? I have now added a bit about her role in the original film and the new website of that name, but am not clear on what it is that you objected to... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69, are you happy with the replacement of the source and my suggestion of removing the "arts trailblazer" part from the hook? TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for making those fixes! My concern with the website was that I didn't find any signs of it having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The typical standards I would look for would be something like an editorial board or a peer-review process (for journals), or evidence that other reliable sources consider it reliable as well. Essentially, we need some assurance that the source has done its homework before making factual claims. I hadn't realized it before, but since Roberts was involved with Satellite Dreaming, that means the website is not an independent source for statements about her; again, that makes its reliability doubtful. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

She wasn't involved with the filmmakers - she was interviewed for the film... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The NFSA website is a reliable source about the film. Also, the co-producer of the original film, and creator of the website, is Tony Dowmunt, "Emeritus Professor in the Department of Media, Commmunications and Culture at Goldsmiths University of London, and was Convenor of the MA Screen Documentary in the Department from 1995-2015". The website is set up in accordance with cultural protocols (which, incidentally WMAU is in the process of trying to incorporate into Wikimedia at the moment) and in my view appears to be very well-credentialled. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Is this resolved? There are three bios next to each other in this set and there's a hook in Queue 3 (omnisexuality) I asked for a second opinion on and haven't got, so I'd like to swap them.--Launchballer 20:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I was going to swap out Omnisexuality to Prep 6, but the Swap took was malfunctioning for me. I'm guessing Queue 3 has already been cascaded protected, but that would be weird since I'm still seeing "Edit source" rather than "View source" despite the page showing up as fully protected rather than just template protected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I have kicked it back to prep until the issues are resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

What are the issues? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, @Laterthanyouthink, @Launchballer, @Narutolovehinata5 and @TechnoSquirrel69 if we remove the arts trailblazer bit from the hook, does that resolve this? TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

In my case, no, because the primary issue here is that it's a "first" hook. If that is to stay in the article, the sourcing has to be extra strong and needs multiple strong sources. Otherwise, I would suggest trying other options first and see if that's feasible. If not, we could go with the "first" option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean just supplying citations in the article where people have said that she's a trailblazer? That is easily done, because there are plenty. Let me know if this is the issue, and I can do this later. Else does it need a different hook? (I'm new to this process.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that the word "trailblazer" could be interpreted as a peacock term, and such words should generally be avoided in articles, let alone hooks. As for "first" hooks, the relevant guideline is WP:DYKHOOKCITE, specifically the part about "first" hooks. DYK now discourages superlative hooks (meaning those that revolve around "firsts", "biggests", etc.) as they have often been questioned and/or turned out to be wrong. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that "arts trailblazer" is well supported by the sources. The claim that she was "the first Indigenous Australian television presenter" looks a bit squishy - the Sydney Morning Herald describes her as the first indigenous person to host a "prime-time" program: which is not the same thing, and The Guardian says she was the first to host "a prime-time current affairs program", which is not the same thing again (though they are referring to different programs and one claim does not necessarily invalidate the other).

I think one "first" she can be reliably credited with, however, is as co-host of "the first Aboriginal current affairs program" in Australia., so that would probably work as an alternative hook. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the nom page, I did a wee bit of research on the subject and I couldn't find any ealier hosts. Not by much, but my research led me to believe that she was in fact the first. TarnishedPath^talk 12:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The first what? Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly what the hook says. However, if this is an issue which comes down to sourcing then perhaps we need to go to ALT0, which is interesting and which I also approved. I think adding qualifiers to the current hook is going to dilute the interestingness. TarnishedPath^talk 12:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

We can't use ALT0 because Roberts herself is the source of the claim. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

From mamamia and in their own voice:

Rhoda is a Bundjalung woman, a nurse, journalist, broadcaster, actor, producer, writer, art advisor, and artistic director. And she's also responsible for a lot of major cultural moments in Australia, from the Awakening Ceremony during the opening of the Sydney Olympics in 2000 to coining the phrase Welcome to Country.

From the Australian Broadcating Corporation, and again in their own voice:

"The woman who coined the term "Welcome to Country" has been remembered as a "true storyteller" and inspiration to many at a funeral on Bundjalung Country in northern New South Wales."

Both of those are rock solid sources. Both of those sources were put forward in the nomination. TarnishedPath^talk 13:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would describe either of those quotes as "rock solid" proof, but regardless, the claim is only attributed to Roberts herself in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Both sources have been disxcussed at RSN and I've not seen any reason to doubt them as bering GREL. @Laterthanyouthink, can you comment on why the ABC and Mamamia state that she coined the phrase in their own voices and yet the article attributes it to Roberts? Do we need to update the article to go with what the sourcing states? TarnishedPath^talk 13:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Trying to respond, but this reply functionality does not work properly on my tablet and it's just lost everything I've typed, including links and quotes. I'll get back to it on the computer tomorrow. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

ABC is a very solid source, and while I'm not familiar with mammamia I accept that it probably is, but even from very solid sources, corners can be cut and inaccuracies creep in. That is why we generally like to see more substantial coverage than just a brief line like those above. Having said that, it seems nobody else has put up their hand to claim authorship of the phrase, so it's probably a pretty safe bet. All the same, as I noted earlier, the statement is not actually in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Getting back to this one - I have quite a list of sources which cite her having coined the term and instigated the practice in the 1980s, to a greater or lesser extent, such as this ABC one, this Guardian one, and this University of Technology Sydney one, but last night I came across the Inaugural Rhoda Roberts Oration, delivered by Wesley Enoch and reported by the Koori Mail, which describes how it came to be in some detail. I have not yet added it to the article, but will be doing so shortly, as that oration needs to be added anyway.

The UTS one also says "first Indigenous host on primetime TV"; ABC says "first Aboriginal host on mainstream television", Guardian says "the first Aboriginal person to host a prime-time current affairs program", and many others say similar. There had not previously been an Indigenous host or presenter anywhere on national TV that I could find - the only possible predecessors on any station, but only by a year, would most likely have been on Imparja Television, an Aboriginal-run station that started in January 1988 - but this was not national, mainstream, or primetime. (This last sentence is based only on fairly quick OR and I don't claim this as fact).

I agree that "trailblazer" could be a peacock term, and did not use it in the article, but as her contribution was clearly extraordinary, I don't see it as an exaggeration, and it has been used by multiple reliable sources, so it seems ideal to use as a hook to me... However, I'll leave others to decide on the hook as I am not experienced in this process. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink, the issue that Gatoclass points out above is that the hook states that she coined it without attribution and yet in the article it is attributed to her. I.e., She credits herself with introducing the term "Welcome to Country" in the 1980s in the lead and "Roberts "modestly yet proudly" credited herself with introducing the term "Welcome to Country" in the 1980s" in the body. Per WP:DYKDEFINITE, [t]he wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information. Given that the ABC and Mamamia state that she coined the term without stating that she credited herself, I'd suggest the article needs to be updated to state the claim as fact, wiothout using termelogy which states that she credits herself. Once you did that I see no issue with moving forward with ALT0. TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

There's more about it in a footnote in the Rhoda Roberts Oration section, with quite a long explanation in that source, but I could use some of this earlier in the article as well I suppose. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink, that's fine, but those two parts I quoted, they need to be adjusted so that they state she coined it in wikipedia voice without stating that "credits herself" or "credited herself". TarnishedPath^talk 13:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've written some more about it in the lead and body. See what you think. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

That looks like what would be required. @Gatoclass, @Launchballer, @Narutolovehinata5 and @TechnoSquirrel69, given the couple of changes which @Laterthanyouthink has made to the article, the sources, the article and ALT0 are all now in agreement. If there is no further issue could someone swap it into the Prep 6. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

So what is the proposed hook? Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass as I stated above, ALT0 * ... that Indigenous Australian cultural leader Rhoda Roberts coined the term "Welcome to Country", a ceremony which is included at the opening of the Australian Parliament as well major sporting events?

The article is now in agreement with the hook. TarnishedPath^talk 00:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

A bit clunky. Suggested tweak:

• ALT0a: ... that Indigenous Australian cultural leader Rhoda Roberts coined the term "Welcome to Country" for a ceremony used at the opening of the Australian Parliament as well as major sporting events?

Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

You forgot an "as" before "major sporting events", but at 191 characters long (once the typo has been fixed), that doesn't seem to fix the issue either. It's within 200 characters, but the hook itself still feels long and clunky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:50, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to make it less clunky, we can remove the cultural leader bit. While it is true and supported, our readers can find that out by reading the article. So we could have *ALT0b: ... that Indigenous Australian Rhoda Roberts coined the term "Welcome to Country" for a ceremony used at the opening of the Australian Parliament as well as major sporting events?

TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Leaving out "cultural leader" omits most of her life's work in favour of a relatively minor achievement, so I think it has to stay. I disagree with Naruto that ALT0a is overly long and clunky, I think it reads cleanly and easily and doesn't seem excessively long at all. "Clunky" hooks are generally hooks that are either badly expressed and could be expressed more concisely, and/or hooks that are difficult to read because they contain too many facts with no obvious connection, and neither of those apply to ALT0a in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

What about...

that Indigenous Australian cultural leader Rhoda Roberts coined the term "Welcome to Country", for a ceremony now used at the opening of Parliament and most major events? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Works for me. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Substituted, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 1 (1 September 2026)

Kotaro Tatsumi (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Miminity, and Richard Nevell: This is currently sourced to his own website and needs a better source.--Launchballer 12:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it’s not controversial Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Well no, if his website's the only source then it isn't due, surely? Not to mention that helping the unfortunate is exactly the kind of thing one might fluff a CV with...--Launchballer 14:57, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by did a search - the Japanese Communist Party website (again, kinda primary) says "ハンセン病の専門医で現国立療養所邑久光明園（岡山県）園長の畑野研太郎氏が、北野高校の卒業生であることから、文化祭では畑野氏が取り組んでいたバングラデシュのハンセン病患者のワクチン接種を支援するチャリティーコンサートを開催。３年生も終りに近づいた95年１月17日に起きた阪神淡路大震災では、自治会で救援カンパも呼び掛けました", or "Because Kentaro Hatano, a specialist in leprosy and the current director of the National Sanatorium Oku Komeien (Okayama Prefecture), is an alumnus of Kitano High School, the school held a charity concert at the school festival to support the vaccination of leprosy patients in Bangladesh, a project that Mr. Hatano was involved in. When the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake occurred on January 17, 1995, as the third year of high school was nearing its end, the student council also appealed for relief donations." Other than that, all I can find are a few sites that read kinda unreliable, specifically Kotae Blog and Curious Channel, and false positives. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Ultimate Robot Knock-out Legend (nom)

Opening this up to the floor per WP:DYKFIRST.--Launchballer 12:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at this one yesterday and considered pulling it because it looked like the article may not accurately reflect the sources, as the article seems to imply it's just the robots doing all the fighting themselves whereas one of the sources I checked said they are largely controlled by remotes operated by humans. But I didn't have time to investigate it more thoroughly and was unfortunately unable to find time to do more work in the queues today, so somebody else might like to take a look to compare the article with the sources - thanks for bringing this one to wider attention. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the "first" claim probably checks out though, as it is quite specific, though it might be worth double-checking. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Was wondering what the thanks was for. "Remote control is barred" is cited to two sources, one of which says that and the other says differently. A flip through some random sources suggests that it is in fact barred, but pinging @Dragonhawk12, Beta Beta Beta, and JaredMcKenzie: anyway.--Launchballer 14:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

One of the sources - I don't recall which - definitely says the robots are remote controlled by humans, but that the robots' combat moves rely on AI. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The thanks, BTW, was for helping keep the 12-hour cycle going - unfortunately I was unable to help today due to some other things coming up. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, autonomy at least to a degree (no human intervention) is the requirement for qualifications. Also these robots are capable of both teleoperation and autonomy. The rules for qualification is that robots need to be able to manipulate its own joints and recover from a fallen position without human intervention and adopt the boxing stance and there's a time limit. Also their company reputation is based on developing AI-powered robots so doubt you would expect them to be fully remote controlled. There is bound to be a degree of an autonomy mandate especially given the qualification criteria.

But their company website hasn't yet published their rules for main tournament so not possible to presume. I be fine leaving out the part about them being "fully autonomous" for now - until the company publishes their main tournament rule book. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Gatoclass was probably referring to , which says "Human operators control each robot using handheld remotes and custom control interfaces, dictating overarching strategy: positioning on the mat, when to advance, when to trigger specific combat moves. The robot’s internal AI handles execution — calculating the micro-adjustments required for walking, shifting weight, and throwing strikes without losing balance. The human provides the intent. The AI provides the physical execution."--Launchballer 11:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to me to be broadly teleoperation. "Fully remote controlled" would be misleading since the robots translate intent into pre-trained moves. The robot isn't reproducing every single movement of pilot's controller input as their AI system is doing part of the control. But it doesn't sound like fully autonomous either as there is still a human in the loop. Probably the author may have misunderstood or didn't know the nuance. It sits more between conventional teleoperation and full autonomy. Regardless I removed that part from the article saying remote control is barred and added in their published rules for recovery test. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

IMO the hook should be pulled because the article still exaggerates the autonomy of the robots, which according to the source quoted, are actually remotely controlled by humans for much of what they do. Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass How? Did you not see me just remove the part about remote control is barred. What else is possibly an issue? Also it's misleading to conflate remote controlled for teleoperation. They are not the same thing. A robot can be very advanced in AI and only receive basic intent but translate them into autonomous actions.

Neither the hook nor the current article even mention the robots have full autonomy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The quote above from Launchballer should make it clear - humans dictate "overarching strategy: positioning on the mat, when to advance, when to trigger specific combat moves". All the robots do is handle "execution". The article makes none of that clear, so it gives a misleading impression of the autonomy of these robots. Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not full autonomy but it's also not acting out a pre-designed routine. There is a degree of autonomy that's not possible with conventional pure remote control. There's a nuance where a highly autonomous robot still needs certain directions. Obviously it's not going to dance whenever it feels like it. Also if a robot is out of commission or a match hasn't started, you need a human to direct it when to begin fighting. Source said - the depth of autonomy differs. URKL's robots handle substantially more of the low-level physical decision-making required to execute an operator's commands than a directly teleoperated system would. The result is combat movement that can be faster and more dynamically responsive than pure teleoperation, while remaining strategically directed by a human operator rather than operating autonomously or solely from pre-programmed routines. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

As described, it really isn't much different than a human operating a fighter in a video game. The human decides where to move and what attack to use and then sends the command via remote, and the software handles the rest. You wouldn't say the computer fighter on screen has any sort of "autonomy" worth the name, and it appears these robots have no more.

Regardless, the bottom line is that the article as it currently stands does not accurately describe how much of the robots' actions are controlled by human operators. Until that is fixed, it shouldn't be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I am now genuinely concerned in your response - as it seems that despite I have repeatedly told you I removed the issue - you are repeatedly referring to the problematic wording as though it is still present in the article, despite the fact that I have removed it.

If there is a particular sentence or paragraph that is incorrect - do point it out to me. Otherwise please do not characterize the article as misleading when the wording u appear to be referring to has already been removed.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Please understand Video games is not comparable to real world robotics in terms of AI usage. To explain - unlike video games - it's IMPOSSIBLE for robots to rely on pre-programmed trajectories when recovering from falls. People tried and failed. A remote control with zero level of real AI autonomy can not pull this off. But for URKL, human intervention is not needed for them to stand up on their own. So that recovery movement without human intervention in itself is inherently advanced autonomy.

Don't take my word for it - as even the source that we both just literally read made great efforts to explain that UKRL differs from direct teleoperation system as it has higher autonomy. It is accurately a semi-teleoperated system which also means semi-autonomous. The basics is others who are actually in the Ai tech industry accept a semi autonomous robot can receive commands from humans. In contrast to fully autonomous robots, semi-autonomous robots depend on commands from a human. And others are also coherent with our source that UKRL is not purely teleoperated as many of its moves are decided autonomously without human intervention. Ie - These units are semi‑teleoperated: onboard systems handle balance, stabilization, and motion execution, while human operators issue high‑level intent commands like “right punch” or “left kick.” I already explained what's done autonomously and what's still done by remote. It's semi-teleoperated / not directly teleoperated due to higher autonomy which my article accurately reflects.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Regardless I already removed the part about full autonomy so I don't know what else you expect me to do further. Again - did you not realize my latest edits to remove that issue? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

As this remains unresolved I've bumped this to Prep 2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It's resolved tho. The other guy had issues with the article saying full autonomy. I agree and removed it. Despite it's removed and I had explicitly informed them that it had been removed - for some odd reason he keeps replying as though the article still retains that problematic phrase.

At this point, when u continuously tell someone that you've already addressed the issue, but they keep responding as if you haven't, it becomes problematic to understand what they're actually objecting to. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for those edits, but I think the article needs a little more work. I will try to find some time to make some adjustments over the next day or two so it can be featured. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Like what? Seriously, this is odd. You only raised one issue, and that issue has now been resolved. You previously said bottom line is that the article as it currently stands does not accurately describe how much of the robots' actions are controlled by human operators. Until that is fixed, it shouldn't be promoted.

However I have told you repeatedly that issue has been resolved, yet you have continued to respond as tho I have not addressed it. Now you appear to be raising a different unspecified objection. If there is a substantive issue preventing promotion of an article that happens to show China producing world class robots, please identify it specifically rather than just introducing a new objection after the original one had been addressed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I have told you repeatedly that issue has been resolved

You don't get to decide whether or not "an issue has been resolved" on your own nomination, we have reviewers and set promoters to do that independently and I am one of them. As it happens, I am under no obligation to fix the issues myself, but have undertaken to try rather than just marking your nom as not ready for promotion. Please exercise a little patience as I am currently busy in real life and can't get to it right away. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

When I had said it was resolved - I meant specifically and only the original issue you raised. No more than that.

You had said the article shouldn't have claims of full autonomy. I removed those claims and told you I have done so. That was the issue you had raised, and therefore you can understand my frustration when I kept telling you I removed it yet you kept telling me that specific issue is still there.

I wasn't saying that there could not be other issues with the article. I was simply pointing out that the particular issue you originally raised had been addressed.

Nobody is forcing or pushing you to work on that article. I am certainly not. If you want to raise additional issues, I am more than happy to take notes of them and work through them separately. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I have added a brief quote from one of the sources to the article, which on reflection is pretty much all I think it needed to address my concern about accuracy.

Please note however that I have not addressed the WP:DYKFIRST question originally raised by Launchballer - that will still have to be checked out by somebody at some point. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Your edits are fine.

And it's definitely the first professional league. By definition, professional means promotion and publicity and this is the first one ever to be found. I have always been keen on robotics but I know it's only in the last two years when they really advanced. Nowadays I genuinely can't even tell whether a dancing robot is actually a human person in disguise. They become that good. Ie - ^^

But prior to 2025, robots were not even capable of such impressive moves to be worth investing for a public tournament. If there was a commerical professional robot tournament prior to 2025 - it definitely hasn't made any news. No earlier professional humanoid robot combat league has been identified in reliable sources. Given that a genuine professional league would be expected to involve organised public competitions and promotion, the available evidence supports describing URKL as the first. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, @JaredMcKenzie, @Launchballer and @Narutolovehinata5 is this resolved? TarnishedPath^talk 00:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. The first claim is only mentioned once all article, to a single source. DYKFIRST requires strong sourcing, and for such a claim like this, one source is not going to cut it. The explanation above, even if not in the article, could count as original research, so I don't think that's enough to support the claim either. I would suggest moving away from this angle, it's more trouble than it's worth. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath@Narutolovehinata5 Huh, only one source? There's like multiple sources there and in their opening line and or headline. It is supported by a substantial body of independent reliable sources in their voice - The available reliable coverage consistently treats the event as unprecedented and emphasize this. What are the odds that ten sources all acknowledge it's unprecedented and the world's first and are also all wrong? I have not found a single reliable source that had contradicted it and so I have more than enough reason to believe it's a well supported fact. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

And crucially, my above ten sources authors wrote it in their own editorial voice. All ten sources didn't say stuff like "according to". They all stated it as a fact rather than a claim. That is important as it means the characterization is being independently adopted by multiple publications, rather than just mere reported as an unverified claim by EngineAI or the organizers. Yes, the organisers indeed did make that claim but they were clearly not alone in making this characterization. Multiple independent publications reviewed the event and likewise described it as the world's first. So my sources isn't simply that: "EngineAI says it's the first." It is: "EngineAI says it's the first, and multiple independent publications independently characterize it as the world's first in their own voice." JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, I could write the hook as something like - Did you know that Ultimate Robot Knock-out Legend is a professional robot fighting league in which human-sized humanoid robots fight in the ring, and that one opening match ended with a robot decapitating its opponent with a head kick? - it doesn't mention it's the world first of its kind but it's still interesting and definitely also well supported by many coverage. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Too wordy. How about:

• ALT2: ... that a life-sized humanoid robot kept fighting after having its head kicked off during the inaugural Ultimate Robot Knock-out Legend event?

Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Substituted, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The Young Lady with the Shiner (nom)

@Sennecaster, APK, and Victuallers: This is currently sourced to , which I can't get a preview of, and , which has fallen offline and the Internet Archive's down. Any chance of a quote from the first or of an alternative source?--Launchballer 12:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer; He went to Pittsfield General Hospital, which led to an article in The Berkshire Eagle. He told a reporter that he would accept a black eye in any of its "ripe" stages of discoloration...Finally, the father of two-and-a-half-year-old Tommy Forsberg, of Worcester, Massachusetts, who had fallen down a flight of stairs that left him with two shinners, drove the boy to Rockwell's studio and had him pose. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sennecaster:, thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Paula Maxa (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Jishara, and 1timeuse75: There appears to be close paraphrasing from which needs fixing. I'm fine with the hook (murder by definition is fatal, so the hook is obviously not referring to actual murder), but you should watchlist WP:ERRORS just in case.--Launchballer 12:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'll take a source that wasn't months away from publishing bullshit-bot vomit if you've got one.--Launchballer 12:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Changed wording and removed that source Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Queue 4 (6 September 2026)

Penny the Polar Bear (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Finnfrog99, Vestrian24Bio, and Victuallers: Two things. Firstly, you may wish to address the {{lead too short}} tag, which isn't technically a DYK criterion but would cause this to be quickfailed at GA, for which this is currently nominated. Also, got any hooks that aren't 'did you know that X said Y queerphobic thing about Z'?--Launchballer 17:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

its not that something queerphobic was said about penny is interesting, its that it was said in russian parliament that makes it interesting Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

fixed lead too short Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Queerphobia? ... but can't you sense what it's being weaponized for? There are other offensive themes at work. Victuallers (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Stanković, currently on Mainpage

I was told to bring this up here, rather than at Errors:

Not an error per se, but the entry about Dejan Vuk Stanković looks like it breaks both NPOV and BLP requirements: wikipedia shouldn't be written from the perspective of anti-Stanković protesters, to popularize their cause, and Stanković, however many faults he may have (I don't even know precisely who he is) should not be introduced by the fact that there is currently a mass of people who dislike him (and the hook revolves around them and their cause against him). Some effort should go into scrutinizing these Serbia-related hooks, as it is not the first one where I've seen this kind of propaganda seeping in.

To anyone wishing to object, please consider this: it is a fact whose sole "interest" is to those opposing him, hoping to attract in more people opposing him. If not: care to explain what is interesting about a fact that some people oppose some politician, that the fact must be on the main page?

"Did you know that Stanković is one of the few politicians in history who have ever had opponents? It just so happens that these opponents are active right now, and would really like for their cause to gain popularity, please subscribe." Is this what DYK is good for now? Dahn (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The claims of propaganda and hoping to attract in more people opposing him are ill-founded WP:ASPERSIONs against the editors involved in this article and the DYK nomination. I would say it's relatively rare and thus interesting for an education minister's appointment to be opposed by protestors, and I reject the claim that the hook was written from the point of view of the protestors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I am asking what interest it could possibly have other than propagandizing the cause; who would actually say "ah, yes, that's very interesting", without having either a stake in the matter or defending a poor editorial decision? As for your opinion that students rarely oppose the appointment of education ministers: should we test that against facts? would you like to verify how many times it happens in an average European country, or how many times it's been the case in Serbia alone? All of which still doesn't answer the fact that this entry puts its finger on the BLP scale by suggesting that the man is/is widely seen as corrupt -- something which, even if terribly true or whatnot, should not be anywhere near mainpage, especially as a factoid introducing him to the world, as long as the man is alive. Am I being clearer now? Dahn (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Dahn, you can say you didn't think it was neutral without trying to say that editors who composed this hook and placed it on the homepage were engaged in "propaganda". Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

It is advertising the anti-Stanković cause precisely as that cause is trying to gain a foothold. Is that better? Dahn (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not great. Though I'd be more concerned about the two sentences "he has been accused of sexual harassment by female students" and "According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, no sexual harassment complaints were filed against Stanković". I have to also say that I wouldn't have passed this as a GA. The grammar and tenses are not great in some places and it's very confusing for those that are unfamiliar with the minutiae of the Serbian education system. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Wait, it's a GA?! I thought it was a new article. Now if I were to be casting aspersions, I would be half-inclined to say that an effort was being made to... ah, never mind, I think anyone gets it by now. As for the sexual impropriety allegations: I now see that; we get sources stating that claim, which was denied by him and completely refuted by the investigating authorities, in a BLP. And how all those allegations made "during his tenure at the Faculty" are sourced to articles from when he was already minister -- wasn't there a public interest in the supposed allegations when he was leading a portion of a college? Draw your own conclusions. Dahn (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

P3 Piero Volpi

• ... that an Italian footballer helped Brazil win the 2002 FIFA World Cup?

I'm sorry, but the hook just seems too much of a stretch to me based on the given sources. One says Volpi was Ronaldo's physician when he played for Inter Milan, two years before the world cup he supposedly helped Brazil win. Another says he was there when Ronaldo had knee surgery - in 1999, but even then the surgery was done by another guy, I quote: The operation was performed by the team of Dr. Gérard Saillant, a tendon treatment specialist who also treated driver Michael Schumacher after his accident at the British Grand Prix, and, in the 1980s, driver Clay Regazzoni, who was injured in the United States. Eric Rolland, who works with Saillant, and Piero Volpi, Inter Milan's doctor, were present during the surgery". Pinging @Mtvdanilo, Beta Beta Beta, and AirshipJungleman29:. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

#Piero Volpi (nom). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Airship. That pretty much confirms that I am not alone in these concerns and that others may take the same view if this hook is run. IMO a new hook will need to be found. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:DYKMOS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:DYKMOS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 3 § Wikipedia:DYKMOS until a consensus is reached. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 5 (6 September 2026)

Angry Video Game Nerd (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, 1timeuse75, Finnfrog99, Narutolovehinata5, and WALKKKKK: "... that the main lead actor from the film Home Alone reviewed his own video games for a web series?" Hi all, I think the phrasing here could use a slight adjustment- saying [Culkin] "reviewed his own video games" suggests to me that he played a part in creating or developing them, which doesn't seem accurate. I'd maybe phrase it like ALT5: that the star of Home Alone appeared on a web series to review video games based on the film?", but bringing here to see if others have suggestions/thoughts. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to edit Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think that it would be vague, but the reword sounds good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 3. We have a total of 379 nominations, of which 201 have been approved, a gap of 178 nominations that has decreased in size by 6 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Quetena (second opinion requested)
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas J. W. Burgess (another reviewer requested)
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Casabe
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup final (second opinion requested)
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Gold Crown from Cheonmachong Tomb
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/John Huston filmography (needs new hooks)
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Atanasie Popovici
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Philoxenos Yuhanon Dolabani
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Korean shamanism
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Who's Who in Colored America
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Cold spot (astronomy)
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Ana Grozdanović
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Paramita Bandara
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Recollections of Things to Come
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Bahanur Şahin Gökalp
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Boum'ba Maza
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Clint Reilly
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Ti Jean
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Jogakbo (second opinion requested)
• July 30: Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Westgate Entertainment District shooting
• July 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Pritha Sen
• August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/2026 Meghalaya border fencing protests
• August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Yeh Cheng-min
• August 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Sun Pictures
• August 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Katharine Snodgrass
• August 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Victoriano Gómez Urrutia
• August 3: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Kessoku Band live performances
• August 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Yenser

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) 21:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6 (September 9)

1936 Liechtenstein general election (nom)

Moved from WP:ERRORS

 – TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• "... that in the 1936 Liechtenstein general election, the Patriotic Union received 47% of the vote, yet only won four of the fifteen seats?" As far as I can tell, the PU received 40.75% of the total vote, and the PCP 59.25%. The 47% comes from a strange subset called "national vote", where the 5 most popular candidates of every party are compared, but where the supposed percentage comes from adding up these figures even though that's not a correct calculation of the total percentage of the votes. Fram (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Not familiar enough with Liechtenstein elections to make a change without discussion. Ping to @TheBritinator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Also @RandomEditsForWhenIRemember, Soman, and Z1720:.Launchballer 14:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fram Here are what the two respective books say:

Extended content

Geiger: "Vergleicht man die von den Kandidaten erzielten Stimmenzahlen nach Parteien, so erreichte in der ersten, gemeindeweisen Wahlrunde die Bürgerpartei 1303 Stimmen (56,3%), die Vaterländische Union 1010 (43,7%),⁷⁰⁵ in der zweiten, landesweiten Runde dann die Bürgerpartei 6432 (52,2%) und die Vaterländische Union 5883 Kandidatenstimmen (47,8%). Die Union erzielte in der zweiten Runde Mehrheiten wieder in den drei Gemeinden Balzers, Triesen und Triesenberg, während die übrigen acht Gemeinden deutlich für die Bürgerpartei votierten."

Vogt: Wahl von 10 Abgeordneten durch die Gemeinden (9. Februar 1936)

Gemeinde Gültige Stimmen Gewählt (mit … Stimmen) Nicht gewählt (mit … Stimmen)

Balzers 366 Basil Vogt, VU (218) Georg Vogt, FBP (148)

Triesen 251 Ferdinand Heidegger, VU (156) Adolf Frommelt, FBP (92)

Triesenberg 305 Josef Beck, VU (175) Johann Beck, FBP (130)

Vaduz 329 Ludwig Ospelt, FBP (180) Rudolf Amann, VU (148)

Schaan 331 Ferdi Risch, FBP (239) Josef Schierscher, VU (88)

Planken — — —

Eschen 171 Josef Marxer, FBP (158) —

Mauren 192 Emil Batliner, FBP (168) —

Gamprin 92 Joh. G. Hasler, FBP (51) Josef Marxer, VU (39)

Schellenberg 76 Philipp Elkuch, FBP (51) Dr. Alfons Goop, VU (22)

Ruggell 143 Franz Hoop, FBP (86) Fridolin Spalt, VU (50)

Einzelne Stimmen fielen auf andere Kandidaten.

Wahl von 5 Abgeordneten durch das ganze Land

(16. Februar 1936)

Gültige Stimmen: 2510

Gewählt wurden:

Johann Beck, Vorsteher, Triesenberg (FBP), mit 1361 Stimmen

Dr. Otto Schädler, Vaduz (VU), mit 1348 Stimmen

Georg Vogt, Balzers (FBP), mit 1306 Stimmen

Peter Büchel, Mauren (FBP), mit 1258 Stimmen

Pfr. Anton Frommelt, Vaduz (FBP), mit 1255 Stimmen

Die übrigen Kandidaten erhielten:

Lorenz Schierscher, Kassier, Schaan (FBP), 1252 Stimmen

Rudolf Matt, Mauren (VU), 1173 Stimmen

Gottfried Hilti, Schaan (VU), 1142 Stimmen

Heinrich Brunhart, Balzers (VU), 1122 Stimmen

Wendelin Beck, Triesenberg (VU), 1098 Stimmen

TheBritinator (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Geiger and Vogt seem to disagree on the total number of votes on the municipal elections. Geiger says 2313 went to both the FBP and VU combined, whereas Vogt says 2256 including individual votes for other candidates. They agree on the national vote. TheBritinator (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. So the 47% is for 5 of the 15 seats, and the 40% is for 10 of the 15 seats. The hook mixes these two, stating that they had 47% for the 15 seats, which isn't correct. Fram (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. The two vote counts combined for each party (7,735 & 6,779) creates 53.29% and 46.71% respectively. Again, however, the two books disagree with each other on exact figures. I prioritized Vogt here as he goes into depth on the actual results, while Geiger just mentions the result in a couple of sentences. Maybe this could be cleared up in a note? TheBritinator (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Those vote totals exceed the total population of Luechtenstein at the time... there were only about 2600 people who could vote, it seems. Fram (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding. It is a combination of the total votes from the municipal and national votes. I re-checked all the numbers, and I am quite confident that there isn't an error here. TheBritinator (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

how can you have 15000 votes in a country with some 10000 people at the time, and only some 3000 or so eligible voters? I wont have time to discuss this further, but it is all wrong. Fram (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I've bumped this back a few sets to allow longer to discuss this. Suggest moving this to WT:DYK.--Launchballer 20:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fram:, I think the simple answer to your question is that about 2,500 voters took part in the election and got 1 vote in the first (municipality) round and 5 votes in the second (national) round, hence the total number of votes cast was almost 15,000. TSventon (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, voters voted for a candidate in their respective municipality and then had up to 10 votes in the national vote. This is explained in the article, so I am honestly confused as to why this is an issue. TheBritinator (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

TheBritinator I have skimmed the article and can't find up to ten, what text should I be looking for?

In any case I don't think it makes sense to add the municipality and the national votes and calculate a percentage as electors cast 1 vote each to elect 10 municipality representatives and about 5 votes each to elect 5 national representatives, so you could say each municipality vote was ten times more important than the national votes. TSventon (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies yes I meant 5 votes. I'm not really seeing your point though; the election was held in two stages with the party vote counts for both added together to form an overall percentage. I don't see how arguing that one is more important than the other is relevant here. TheBritinator (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Are we any closer to a solution here? Bumping to prep 1, but this can be moved back up if there's a resolution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an error here. TheBritinator (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

But why are you giving the votes for the 5 national candidates 83% of the weight in your overall percentage, and the votes for the 10 municipal candidates 17% of the weight? The same 2500 or so people votes, once 40% for candidates of the one party, and once 47% for candidates of that party. The party got 1 out of 5 candidates when they got 47%, and 3 out of 10 candidates when they got 40%. They didn't get 4 out of 15 when they got 47%. Fram (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, @Fram, @Launchballer, @TSventon and @TheBritinator, what is the status here. Are we moving ahead with the hook as it currenlty exists. It seems to me that there is conensus that there is no issue. Am I off in my assessment? TarnishedPath^talk 08:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Uh, where did you get that idea? I clearly object right above, and a few posts above this TSventon also says "I don't think it makes sense to add the municipality and the national votes and calculate a percentage". The 47% only applies to 5 seats, not to all 15 seats, hence the hook is incorrect. Fram (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Discrepancy in nom page title vs hook article

While copyediting Prep 6, I noticed that the hook for Tamralipta Jatiya Sarkar appeared to have an erroneous {{DYKmake}} credit for Bengal Provincial Congress Party. It appears that the nom page is set up for "Bengal Provincial Congress Party", but the promoted hook is for a different article altogether. I've amended the {{DYKmake}} template in prep, but I'm not sure whether anyone else has noticed this error, or whether this discrepancy may cause any issues later. Pinging @R1F4T, Lbal, and Beta Beta Beta: — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I suspect the wizard was opened on a different article and then filled out for another article. Not ideal, but I think you fixed all that needs fixing.--Launchballer 11:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 1 (8 September 2026)

Pixar Place Hotel (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, NewAccount7295, Finnfrog99, and Finnfrog99/t: the cited source says Most of the Pan Pacific Hotel’s 350 employees were offered jobs with Disney, and about 50 have chosen not to remain with the new owners, Disneyland spokesman Tom Brocato said. - this is not what is said in the hook and article, and cannot be put in wikivoice as it is only according to the spokesman. As an aside, I also struggle to see how it's interesting. Also, the sentence after this in the article is not cited. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7 The article says "At the time the hotel had around 350 employees, most of whom remained employed at the hotel after the change of ownership." followed by the source. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with 1brianm7 on that the hook is exactly as interesting as watching paint dry. Dahn (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

In addition to WP:DYKINT concern, I don't think we should rely on a company spokesman to say in wikivoice that "most employees remained employed"; Disney would have a PR incentive to convey a seamless/pain-free acquisition. I suggest pulling to allow for another hook angle to be workshopped. Zzz plant (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Pulled.--Launchballer 15:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 6 (7 September 2026)

Tendai Rinomhota (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Crisco 1492, JuniperChill, Narutolovehinata5, and TheBritinator: Hook is cited to Ok.co.uk, which is unreliable per WP:NPPSG, and I'm not sure I'm keen on Female First either. Personally, I'm not sure why the hook isn't "that the death of Tendai Rinomhota's Emmerdale character has been described as one of the soap's most memorable", but that wasn't proposed at the nom.--Launchballer 11:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that hook or angle specifically would appeal to non-fans of the show, or to people who've never heard about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:36, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I did not propose that hook as I thought it focused more on the character than actress but I am happy with it being used. Regarding the source, I would not usually use it but since it is specifically referring to her social media where she said that and hence I believe ut satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF, especially as the information is not contentious. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I think 'this show has many deaths and this one's memorable' would work with any show.--Launchballer 12:54, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to change it in that case DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Why is "actress moves from country to country" viewed as interesting to any audience? Dahn (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  It is not common for actresses to move to another continent for years for a stage production DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing in the hook says that she moved there "for years", or even that she did it for a stage production (just after being cast in a stage production; she might have then starred in a million other Australian plays and movies). It may look like all this is clear to you, from the writing perspective, with advanced knowledge of the topic, but the hook does not give anything of that to the reader -- we are simply told that she moved to Australia. Also, while not exactly common, even a hook that would specify it was "for years" and "for a stage production" is still not exactly interesting, but more on the "we couldn't come up with any other hook" side. Dahn (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like there's not a consensus here yet; bumping back to prep 1. (For what it's worth, I find the "did you know she moved somewhere after getting cast in this role" angle not intriguing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing that consensus for anything currently exists. I'm bumping this back to Prep 6. TarnishedPath^talk 08:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Deez (musician) (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Poirot09, and Krisgabwoosh: Two things here, including that the Singles table needs sources. The hook says "worked around 22 hours a day for a month and a half" but the article says "within a month and a half by working around 22 hours a day", which isn't quite the same thing - not that this seems to be based on a quote and that I think this would be too self-serving for us to just take his word for it per WP:ABOUTSELF. Also, I trimmed everything after 'album'.--Launchballer 11:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Refs are in the body, but I'll also link them in the table. I personally disagree with the trimming, I think it's relevant information. Also, I don't think it's that much of an exceptional claim, but I'll leave the decision to other editors who are more familiar with DYK if it should be pulled. Poirot09 (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

It's certainly useful, but it isn't essential to understanding the hook. The showstopper is that the hook disagrees with the article.--Launchballer 13:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Pulled. I agree with Launchballer that this claim is self-serving. I wouldn't even attribute it to him, as working 22 hr/day for 6+ weeks is physiologically implausible and likely an exaggeration on his part in the interview. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Lady of Lawers (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Very Polite Person, and MumphingSquirrel: Not necessarily a DYK issue, but you may wish to resolve the 'inconsistent' tag in the article. Also, one source has copied us.--Launchballer 11:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah that inconsistent tag was actually me. I thought I'd had a lead on a different version of that part but it didn't pan out.

What source copied us? This was the entire article before I built it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_of_Lawers&oldid=1318821245 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

, but they credit us, so no problems. Thank you for removing the tag.--Launchballer 13:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Candidatus Magnetoglobus multicellularis (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Dandelionmoth, Bruce1ee, EmergentAnarchy, and Generalissima: Two things. One, I added a {{cn}} tag which must be resolved before this can run. Secondly - is this really quirky enough for the bottom slot? I think Lady of Lawers would be better for this.--Launchballer 11:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I took this out of the quirky slot; the {{cn}} must be resolved.--Launchballer 16:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Bumped to prep 1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I've bumped this back to Prep 6 and left a notice on the nominators user talk. TarnishedPath^talk 08:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7 (7 September 2026)

Niall Horan

This was meant to be running as an image on the 13th, and was being kept in the special occassional holding area. Is there a reason this has changed? Pinging @TarnishedPath: as they're the one that moved it to a prep Template:Did you know nominations/Niall Horan EmergentAnarchy (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@EmergentAnarchy, the hook is in Prep 7 which will run on 13th of October. As per it getting an image slot, that is never guaranteed and is up to our guidelines and prep builder descretion. In this case Prep 7 already had an image hook when I promoter your nomination and the sets either side of Prep 7 have images of people. WP:DYKVAR suggests that we not have three sets in a row where the image hook is of a person. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Phoenix Dust Storm Scale (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Stu in Flag, Sammi Brie, and BenTanXiaoMing: I'm seeing some WP:AISIGNS in this, what was its involvement?--Launchballer 12:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

This was a bit of a drive-by from me, so I wasn't involved in the article and can't answer it. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: if you could point out your specific concern or concerns, I could attempt to explain or rectify it? Stu in Flag (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe that you may have used AI to use generate at least part of this article. I want you to tell me the extent to which you've used that.--Launchballer 03:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Bumped to Prep 1. @Stu in Flag, please answer Launchballer's question. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Still not clear on the specific article part or parts. It's been about a month since I wrote it. I stumbled across the lack of an article on this topic. Put together an outline. Used claude for literature searches and summaries. I use strict accuracy and no-confabulation rules for searches. Nothing is worse than an invented, non-existent reference. I store as many of the references locally so that i can read them easily and fact check/verify without having to reperform a search. I use redundant references checks and I personally verify every claim.

Speaking of redundancy, which could be seen as a potential AI issue, it seems important to repeatedly mention that this scale is not readily generalizable to other locales. There has already been an attempt to rename/redescribe it as an "American" system.

However, while trying to decipher WP:AISIGNS, and rereading the article. I decided to overhaul it in any case. My original outline was not as clear as it could have been. The new one builds from needs to design, testing and use. Much better story.

Just in case this is the core concern, the short movie is from a real event and I made it with my iPhone at the time noted. It is not AI generated.

Finally, my background is engineering and I have read, written and edited thousands of technical documents. Engineer speak can generate similar issues.

Hope this helps. I am still not clear on the specific concern. Stu in Flag (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that AI-generated text is prohibited in articles, although the new version looks cleaner. I'm going to let someone else queue this.--Launchballer 13:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to pull this and mark it as rejected. I've prod'd the article. I would have CSD'd it but the criteria is narrow. TarnishedPath^talk 08:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Tommy Morrison (golfer) (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, JTtheOG, and Miraclepine: Not seeing sourcing for the Professional wins or Results in major championships tables.--Launchballer 12:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: The content is mentioned and sourced in the Professional career section, but in golf articles the professional wins and major championship results sections usually aren't sourced inline. For golf tournaments from 1986 onwards, the results are verified by the Official World Golf Ranking external link.

This seems to have been standard before I began editing golf articles. I'm not sure if it's the best referencing method, but these sections are about displaying statistical information in a wikitable so the content is usually non-controversial. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Flies in the face of WP:V, so yeah, not the best referencing method. I'll take your word that it's in there and have cited it myself.--Launchballer 13:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

the Xianzhou Luofu (nom)

@Ravenpuff and Gommeh: Just checking this is where it needs to be?--Launchballer 03:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I know what you mean. Can you please elaborate? In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 11:58, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

This was moved to Xianzhou Luofu and back and I don't want a redirect on the main page.--Launchballer 12:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The move had a decent chance of being controversial, so I moved it back and told the person who did it to consider an RM. I'm positive this is where it should be; the "the" is present on official game maps. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 13:01, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 1 (8 September 2026)

Spider pulsar (nom)

@Nrco0e, Shocksingularity, and Beta Beta Beta: (not sure why this isn't coming up on Template:DYK scrutiny...) Ref 38 is cited to O'Doherty, but there's no corresponding citation to that. I have no idea why WP:Cite Unseen is highlighting D'Amico, Roberts, Manchester, Hui, Ginzburg, Swihart, Kandel, Koljonen, Disberg, Yang, and Bykov as unreliable.--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I removed the O'Doherty source myself. There aren't really any contentious claims here, so I'll say that the rest are false positives.--Launchballer 15:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Vermilion (horse) (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Horsebutch, and Alansohn: Significant unsourced content that needs citing before primetime. I also can't find the hook in the article.--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Kager Knueppel (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, JTtheOG, and Miraclepine: This needs more context. As written, this says Knueppel did something with his brother and cousin, which strikes me as something almost everybody does at some point.--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: How about this?

• ALT0b: ... that Kager Knueppel teamed with his two brothers and their cousin Zavier Zens, winning a state basketball championship? Source: Same as ALT0 + In Division 1, top-seeded Wisconsin Lutheran (30-0) capped an undefeated with a 57-37 victory over third-seeded Madison Memorial (27-3) in the championship game.
• ALT0c: ... that Kager Knueppel teamed with his two brothers and their cousin Zavier Zens, winning the state high school basketball championship? Source: Same as ALT0b

Note that I didn't say "as (high school) basketball champions" because Kash isn't mentioned in the wiaawi ref or the (paywalled) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the original hook featured some alliteration but had to be shortened. There is also ALT1, or even something like ALT2: ... that Kager Knueppel did not lose a basketball game in his first two years of high school? JTtheOG (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

ALT0b is a good starting point. I've substituted in "that Kager Knueppel won a state basketball championship with his brothers and cousin" and have moved it to a prep so someone else can check it.--Launchballer 16:26, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Centro de Exposições do Centro Administrativo da Bahia (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Thriley, and NewAccount7295: The article dances around the hook fact but I think it should be spelled out.--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Since there was shoring work supposedly done, perhaps an ALT would be better: that the brutalist "Balance Building" was called a "ticking time bomb"? Thriley (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I swapped it in and moved it back so someone else can double check.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Alberto Ravagnani (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Aydoh8, Bungle491, and Z1720: Article says "his main reason for [standing down as a priest was] his disagreement with the Church's celibacy rules, which require ordained members of the Church to abstain from marriage and sexual activity" which isn't quite the same as "left the priesthood so that he could have sex".--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

In this source (which is in the article) he states While I'm still a Catholic, I am no more a priest, so theoretically I can have sex. If this means this hook can't be ran on a technicality you could always use the alt hook, even if that would mean the article gets chucked to the back of the queue. In solidarity, Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 14:36, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

"I am no more a priest, so theoretically I can have sex" does not mean "he left the priesthood so that he could have sex" and arguably implies the direct opposite of that.--Launchballer 13:24, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Bumped to Prep 1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 and @Launchballer, there's ALT1: ... that Alberto Ravagnani used ChatGPT to write sermons? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-07/alberto-ravagnani-quits-catholic-ministry/106423724

Thoughts on using that? TarnishedPath^talk 08:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Hololive Dreams (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, 1brianm7, and Crisco 1492: I can't believe I managed to review the wrong hook earlier, but the poker and mahjong hook is sourced to the producer saying those things are in there, and I think it shouldn't.--Launchballer 23:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I noted this at the nomination. MOS:VGGAMEPLAY says "primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable [as sources for gameplay sections]." We can go to ALT0 if you don't think that fact is good to run on the main page. (also found another review, gonna add that in a few hours) 1brianm7 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't cited to either of those things. It's cited to a producer saying they're in there. If he's the only one that thinks that worth mentioning, then it shouldn't be in the article.--Launchballer 14:24, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

"Primary sources like game manuals and game guides". The guideline does warn against excessive content from primary sources, but I don't really think a short description of a minigame in a section about minigames included in the game otherwise sourced to secondary sources meets that. The proper venue for removing the allowance to cite primary sources in gameplay sections is WT:VGMOS. The editorial process for this primary source is stronger than the examples given, as IGN decided it was worth including without any comment doubting its truthfulness and providing it a very small modicum of weight compared to the already allowed primary sourcing. Prior to writing this I had always assumed gameplay sections had some sort of MOS:PLOT exception, but they do not... for some reason. I do know that we have somewhat higher standards for putting stuff on the Main Page, and so am fine moving to ALT0. 1brianm7 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I've swapped the hook and put it in an earlier prep so someone can double check.--Launchballer 16:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7 @Launchballer How does ALT0 pass WP:DYKFICTION? I do not see how characters having apples fall on their heads during the game can be described as a real-world fact. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I thought "Video game mechanics are not considered in-universe for DYK purposes and are not covered by this criterion" covered it.--Launchballer 03:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Seconding Launchballer. It is an interaction coded into the game and discovering it gives the player an achievement (that info is not in the source). 1brianm7 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, fine, if that's the criterion. (It doesn't make sense under the principle that anything can be designed to happen in a video game though.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I was the one who added that to DYKFICTION). My understanding is that video game mechanics don't count as in-universe because they involve player (or real-world) involvement, rather than something that actually happens as part of the plot. There's a real world connection involved. I vaguely recall there being an RFC or discussion a while back that actually talked about video game mechanics in relation to DYKFICTION and I think the consensus was that they were not covered. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Image choice rationale

I was wondering if there was a specific unwritten standard for DYK lead image choice. There seem to be some that are either hard to see or not particularly suitable, attractive, and interesting. There is a fair bit of taste at play, but the one today is a rather plain, beige portrait supplied by a subject not apparently known for their appearance. The one before it was a picture of an edifice that was the subject of the page but with a tree covering the upper-right quarter. The Guvercinada one discussed above had an S, A, and I photo, but instead used one where you couldn't see the building in question.

I'm not trying to impugn the work to get those photos. Their value for Wikipedia is of course not in doubt. I haven't done any prep myself, so I'm not coming with a lot of authority. I also have some bias, as someone whose (suitable, imo) images have not been chosen before, though none in these past few sets. But it seems like DYK image choice rationale could bear a discussion. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The choice of the image hook for today is a bit baffling. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't even find the hook that interesting. But my own fault for not monitoring preps/queues closely recently. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:25, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I have found that in this year alone, the quality of images in the lead position has dramatically declined, to the point that each week now there is an image in first slot that should not be there. I think we need to have a new discussion about using quality images in this slot, as either people have forgotten how we used to do this or due to an influx of new people working in preps and queues, the knowledge has been lost or forgotten. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Case in point: Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. Not the best image for DYK at this time. We can do better; Template:Did you know/Queue/6. Barely visible at DYK resolution. What am I looking at? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas: There are better images in prep than Audobon Terrace and Kiyoko Tanaka, but they aren't so bad that I'd object to them running, and as #Spider pulsar (nom) and #Pixar Place Hotel (nom) both have question marks and the rest are bios I'm not able to swap Audobon Terrace out particularly easily. I suggest that if you want something else in there, promote something. As for Tanaka, there is actually a request for 13 September on Approved and prep 4 is the first set that could feasibly run that day, so suggest putting him in that slot.--Launchballer 03:32, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Or ticking off Demirhisar in prep 5, which I reviewed and could move in.--Launchballer 10:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 6 has apparently free photos in Template:Did you know nominations/Henri Gil-Marchex (@RabidTuberculosis:, rev. @Zingarese: ), Template:Did you know nominations/Mansfield Crisis (my own, rev. RabidTuberculosis), and Template:Did you know nominations/Dániel Karsai (@Kovcszaln6: rev. @Lynngol:). Would be in comparison to Template:Did you know nominations/Audubon Terrace (@Epicgenius: rev. @TheBritinator:)

Prep 4 (the Tanaka image) doesn't seem to have any current available contenders besides possibly the co-nom'd page Chieko Hara. The Tanaka image also looks within the bounds to me and was explicitly praised by reviewer. Some of these less suitable images are questionable to me because the reviewer doesn't mention them either way (to say good, bad, or assess the free-ness). Given how relatively few image hooks there are and how they reflect on the whole section, I think requiring a sentence or two of prose that explicitly approves the image to possibly help this problem. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The Gil-Marchex and Karsai images would violate WP:DYKVAR and the Mansfield Crisis image doesn't clearly depict a crisis.--Launchballer 18:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer and @Viriditas, I don't really see the problem with the image in Queue 6. One could argue that the image is too drab, but DYK isn't supposed to be running FP-quality images, just something that illustrates the topic. (Also, to be fair, the image does depict the actual terrace at Audubon Terrace.) – Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, the Audobon Terrace image is fine; yes, the fine detail may not be visible in the thumbnail, but it's intriguing enough and importantly, it's in colour and is a decent resolution when clicked on. The Tanaka image also looks passable to me, it isn't high quality but it looks good as the thumbnail and doesn't look bad in full resolution.

By contrast, the image of the torpedo boat in prep 3 is low resolution and quite scratchy. While I get that the promoter may have chosen it to get some variety into the sets, its quality really isn't up to an appropriate standard for the main page in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m a partisan here, but I struggle to see how it doesn’t reflect the integration crisis. It’s about the enforced segregation of a school—-the picture shows an officer enforcing segregation with a vestige of the pro-segregation fight over the schoolhouse door. There was a clearer connection in the hook, but it was trimmed.

I think that following a strict notion of DYKVAR which can result in plain portrait then plain edifice then plain portrait then plain edifice is potentially influencing the overall feeling shared by some people here. Maybe it’s the 12-hour sets, but it’s not nothing and it’s not for a lack of interesting images.

We have 2 NYC architecture (uptown Manhattan even) elements within 24 hours, for example. Great pages they may be, but it’s not really feeling like variety. It’s worth assessing even beyond these hooks/images. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

This is an issue that's been bugging me for a while, IMO high-quality images should almost always be chosen for the lead (taking into account the need for variety, historical importance etc), but a lot of lead images now seem to be of pretty indifferent quality, as if set builders aren't taking the issue of quality into account at all. I would certainly support adding something to the guidelines regarding the issue, assuming it's not already there. Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:DYKIMG says The first hook in the set on the main page must have an associated image or other piece of media. The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size of the {{main page image/DYK}} template (140x140 pixels, adjusted for aspect ratio). That could obviously be tweaked. TSventon (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm unsure how it would be tweaked, as it already states that the images must be suitable, attractive, interesting and display well at DYK size. What more guidance would we give? TarnishedPath^talk 11:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I wonder whether requiring an explicit go-ahead from reviewer and from prepper would help. Like looking through some of these bad examples, the reviewer didn't really explicitly mention the image either way (even to say image freely available). I think if it limits the pool to only reviews that explicitly check off the photo it could create extra roadblocks, but they could be resolved by a ping to reviewer. Not sure how practical would be. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is that images can look better from far off than they do close up, and since DYK images are small and seen from far off, only the good details stand out in some cases. NewAccount7295 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I feel like that's the case far more often than not. TheBritinator (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change the guidance on image choice. The selection of image hooks will always be somewhat subjective and a matter of the promoter's taste in addition to balancing DYKVAR, etc. It's certainly within the discretion of a queue mover to change the image if they don't like it, but I would encourage us not to micromanage other promoters' image selections unless the image does not meet objective criteria or is just categorically unsuitable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see a compelling reason to micromanage images to such a degree. They can be handled on a case-by-case basis just fine. TheBritinator (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to make this my last contribution in this conversation as I've participated throughout and it seems wound-down. But no one is trying to micromanage. There have been multiple iffy images I've noticed over multiple weeks. That happens and, at the end of the day, a prepper/queuer's taste will rule the day. I spotlighted 3-4 from the past few days and multiple people independently agreed and also noted the trend. Whether you want to disregard that view is up to you.

But even in this discussion, there are conflicting views on the guidelines. Should the image be of strong quality (composition, brightness, sharpness) or should it just be acceptable to show a specific tangible subject (mostly buildings and portraits)? Should it be best at thumbnail size or should it require someone to enlarge to actually see what's going on? Does color have an inherent advantage over BW? DYKVAR is followed with some admirable religiosity, but surely it runs into trouble when Saturday and Sunday both have images of buildings on the same island in the same city, supplied by the same (dogged, invaluable) contributor? Can a contributor, as with Guvercinada Castle above, simply say that they prefer a less suitable, less DYK-appropriate photo (per promoter and reviewer) and be heeded? Is there something that can change or is the system working precisely as desired? It is nothing against the excellent contributions themselves, only that DYK image selection might not be fully calibrated. Again, whether you want to acknowledge the concerns here is up to you as individual preppers/queuers, but it's not a matter of mere hindsight bias or nitpicking. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I made a comment here a month or so ago recommending that an image expert go over the queue, just like Ravenpuff goes over the wording. That's the solution, but you have to find someone to do it. At the time, I recommended User:Based5290 for the job as they have shown a proven track record of working with great images and understanding the concept in discussions about them. But they aren't all that active. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to formalize this anymore beyond what we already do, leaving it to the discretion of promoters and queuers. My one image hook defies all of the standards brought up here for consideration, and it got more views than that day's TFA: "... that there was a decades-long search for a photograph of Shorty Gallagher (pictured)?" 1brianm7 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. Not sure how that addresses the fundamental problem of bad images. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 2

Chieko Hara (nom)

@RabidTuberculosis, Generalissima, and Beta Beta Beta: Did a spot-check on the sources for Kiyoko Tanaka and I found some source-text integrity issues. The sentence reading The Fryderyk Chopin Institute records that between 1955 and 1957, she undertook several tours that established her internationally, with the European musical press describing her as one of the finest pianists of her generation, and that in 1958 she made an extensive and well-received tour of South America is supported by a source whose only reference to Tanaka is as follows: The history of classical music in Japan provides many examples of prominent musicians pursuing successful careers on both the local level – e.g. the pianist, violinist and composer Kōda Nobu (1870–1946), author of the first composed piece of music based on Western music techniques (Violin Sonata, 1895) and her younger sister, the violinist Andō Kō (1878–1963), or Kuno Hisa (1886–1925) – and the international stage – e.g. pianists Tanaka Kiyoko (1932–1996) and Hara Chieko (1914−2001) (Tamagawa, 2012: p.47). Profiles of female musicians were featured in popular magazines like Fujin Sekai [Women’s World] and Fujin Gahō [Illustrated Magazine for Women] in the 1920s (Utagawa, 2019: pp.164–165). Instead, this claim is mostly supported by a different source, the Chopin Institute, but the Chopin Institute bio does not verify that the European musical press described her this way nor that her South American tour was extensive. (It is described as "grand".) This bio is used for several other claims but does not verify that she won a "premier prix" at the Conservatoire, and neither it nor nor this source validate the claim that she was the first Japanese competitor to be placed at the Long-Thibaud competition. The failures of source-text integrity raise concerns about Hagitani 2005, an offline source cited for 19 claims without any page numbers and thus virtually impossible to validate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for looking at this article closely! Looks like a small mix-up, sourcing is otherwise sound.

But the Chopin Institute bio does not verify that the European musical press described her this way nor that her South American tour was extensive.

The Chopin Institute bio states "Between 1955 and 1957, she embarked on several highly acclaimed artistic tours, which led the European music press to hail her as "one of the best pianists of her generation." In 1958, she embarked on a major concert tour of South America, a string of unwavering successes. She was always popular in her home country – there were seasons during which she gave dozens of concerts, performing 120 times a year in Japan alone." It looks like the version on the Wayback Machine has different wording without the bits about European press that the article mentions, so I understand why you flagged this. I've updated the article's link to the live URL, so this should be resolved!

Hagitani 2005, an offline source cited for 19 claims without any page numbers and thus virtually impossible to validate.

The Hagitani biography was the most comprehensive account of her life, and I cited pages 24-30 in the first paragraph of Early Life. The rest of the article does not cite individual pages (possibly because of unfamiliarity with sfn notation). It seems the author has removed previews for all of their works on Google Books , and I can't find a PDF or other scan of the text. This is quite unfortunate as, being a Japanese source, it explicitly tracked Tanaka's firsts as a Japanese winner, including for Long-Thibaud. Since the article was written with access to the source, and since the claim checks out through manual verification of prior winners, I haven't edited it.

This bio is used for several other claims but does not verify that she won a "premier prix" at the Conservatoire I believe Hagitani explicitly named the prize, since it's included in the article. However, the Chopin Institute bio states that she "graduated with distinction", and contemporary sources using wording like "diploma with honors" to refer to the Premier Prix interchangeably. The context is that the Paris Conservatoire held a concours (exit exam) that resulted in a prize (either 1st or 2nd) to graduate. "Premier Prix" was a distinction (not a prize in the usual sense, as many students earned it concurrently when graduating) such that students who did not get the distinction could retry the exam to earn a "premier prix" and graduate (see ). Happy to make changes if you have suggestions! RabidTuberculosis (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@RabidTuberculosis I don't understand your point about "Since the article was written with access to the source". Presumably you wrote the article, so you have access to the source and can thus provide page numbers for this source? Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had access to the source when the article was written in July and cited six of the 294 pages. Some time after the article's publication, the source went offline, so I no longer have access. The bibliography lists the biography as a whole. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Then why did you use the source for other claims where you don't have page numbers? It doesn't make any sense that you would use the source for a claim on a page number you didn't read? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I used a translation engine for parts of the book mentioning her name, and was working off translated English text. I left correlating the translated segments used in the article to original Japanese language pages as a TODO, likely because it was non-trivial to do so for the first pages I'd referenced, and the article was still a draft. Will see if I can get a physical copy on loan! Otherwise the reference to the work, even without pagination, should be useful for interested readers. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find this extremely unconvincing. Why, if you reviewed the full copy of the book, would you have one citation go to a specific page but not the others? I am pulling this and will move this discussion to the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Chieko Hara

 – Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Gottlob Herbert Bidermann (nom)

@Bozfour, Toadboy123, and Beta Beta Beta: Is there an independent source for the five wounds and 1,000 days in captivity? The sole source for these claims in the article is the subject's memoir. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Fair challenge, and thanks for looking closely. Taking the two claims separately.

Nearly 1,000 days. Not memoir-only. Oliver Griffin's review in H-German (H-Net Reviews, July 2004), already cited in the article, describes the epilogue as covering a 1,000-day Soviet captivity before Bidermann's return to Württemberg in 1948. That is a scholarly review summarising the book rather than independent confirmation of the figure, so I'll add it as a second citation and reword the article so the number is attributed rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Five wounds. I'll concede this one. TracesOfWar carries a full wound chronology tied to the Black, Silver and Gold Wound Badges, but its page-level source list includes Bidermann's own memoir, and none of the published works it lists cover Verwundetenabzeichen data — so it is not independent of the memoir and I won't present it as though it were. The University Press of Kansas jacket description says "wounded five times", but that is publisher copy, and the Amazon, Goodreads and JSTOR wordings are reprints of it rather than separate sources. I have no independent source for the count.

Worth noting the article isn't otherwise memoir-dependent. Bidermann's German Cross in Gold is in Patzwall & Scherzer Bd II, p. 41 ("Bidermann, Gottlob, Lt.d.R., GR 437, WH, 01.01.1945") and his Ehrenblattspange in Scheibert (1986), p. 16 ("Bidermann, Gottlob, Lt., 1./Gren.Rgt. 437, 7.11.1944"), both verified against the volumes in hand. Those are independent published registers; it's specifically the wound count and the captivity length that rest on the memoir.

Since both challenged facts sit in the promoted hook, I'd rather replace it than defend it. Proposing:

ALT1: ... that German soldier Gottlob Herbert Bidermann wrote his Eastern Front memoir in 1964, but it did not appear in English until 2000, when it became a History Book Club main selection?

ALT2: ... that in his introduction to German soldier Gottlob Herbert Bidermann's Eastern Front memoir, Dennis Showalter drew attention to what the book leaves out?

ALT3 (original, attributed): ... that according to his own memoir, German soldier Gottlob Herbert Bidermann survived five wounds and nearly 1,000 days as a Soviet prisoner?

ALT1 rests on publication facts. ALT2 is sourced to the Griffin review. ALT3 keeps the original but stops asserting the figures in Wikipedia's voice. Happy with any of them, or none — and no objection if you or an admin would rather pull the hook from the queue while this is sorted out. Bozfour (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Both edits are now made: the captivity length and the wound count are attributed to the memoir in-text, and Griffin (H-German, July 2004) has been added as a second citation on the captivity sentence. The ALT hooks above stand. Bozfour (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not particularly taken by any of these alternatives but happy to let another editor tick them off if they like them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to bump this back to Prep 6 to allow for more discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:01, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

IranNastaliq (nom)

@Noamonsol234, Jishara, and Beta Beta Beta: Thanks for contributing to DYK for the first time! I believe this hook needs to be reworded to be understandable to non-experts in typography or unicode per WP:DYKINT. Can you suggest a simpler way of phrasing this? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

On the talk page, the nominator posted Talk:IranNastaliq#The story behind "IranNastaliq" article: 6 months of research, Persian translations, and the journey from Draft to My First Ever Wikipedia Mainspace!, which is unadulterated LLM slop. I'm not seeing any signs of it in the article, but make sure you're sure.--Launchballer 13:23, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The infobox is manually created. I don't see how a person figures out how to do "{| class="infobox" style="width:27em; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color:#f8f9fa; font-size:88%; line-height:1.5em; float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em; padding:0.2em;"..." in their first article. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I have opened an AfD for this article. Kisseran (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Pulled.--Launchballer 10:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we keep 2/day sets going?

We currently have three sets in queue and just two filled preps (plus one prep that is nearly full of hooks under discussion on this page). I would like to keep this run of 2/day sets going, since WP:DYKNA is still backlogged by two weeks, but if we are at just two queues or fewer after midnight UTC tomorrow I plan to switch back to 24-hour sets. Please queue and prep as you're able to help reduce the backlog of approved hooks! (And thanks to everyone who helped us reduce the backlog over the past several weeks with a nice long run of 2/day sets.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

With just two queues loaded and only two filled preps, I am switching back to 24-hour sets. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 3 (9 September 2026)

Zhao Leji (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, The Account 2, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: Two things. I attributed one phrase which was quite close to the source and which you may wish to summarise before primetime. The other thing is that the source is blog.bnn.co, which a) is a blog, b) comes up as unreliable on WP:Cite Unseen, and c) says "principle" rather than "unspoken rule" according to Google Translate.--Launchballer 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Bumped.--Launchballer 21:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Bumped to Prep 6. Ps, @Launchballer cheers for enlightening me to Cite Unseen. Another script to crowd out my common.js page lol. TarnishedPath^talk 05:27, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Fredericus van Rossum du Chattel (nom)

@Procrastineur49, Crisco 1492, and BeanieFan11: Hook says "too Dutch" but the article says "too entrenched in Dutch landscapes" and these aren't the same.--Launchballer 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Crisco 1492, please could you quote the sources (with translations) for the hook's "too Dutch to successfully paint Indonesia" and the article's "too entrenched in Dutch landscapes to paint the archipelago"? De Sumatra Post and Het Nieuws van den Dag seem to have different opinions. TSventon (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• I'm out of town doing some photography, but I'll give some quotes when I have access to a computer. Reviews did change between his early Indies work and his later stuff (after ten plus years of dealing with the tropics, he adapted). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so re-reviewing on my phone, there's a couple quotes that together present the point. Paragraph 2: "Now came Du Chattel, the artist who already has such an excellent reputation in the Netherlands; he stayed for twenty months and traversed the entire Indies." Second last paragraph: "Mr. Du Chattel has not yet progressed beyond the lakes, the mountains, the rice fields, the trees. Many of his sketches approach the ideal, but, except for that Smeroe, they do not reach it. Not yet! For I believe that if the Indies have had a longer influence on this excellent artist, he will then be able to yield even more and even higher than has already been achieved here." Last paragraph, "His work in the Indies makes us appreciate the Dutch Du Chattel all the more". The Sumatra Post echoes a similar assessment of his early work, but holds that the works completed later were able to surpass the innate 'Dutchness' of his earlier landscapes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I have read both articles and the bit about "too entrenched in Dutch landscapes to paint the archipelago" seems to mirror "Du Chattel’s initial depictions of the East Indies landscape could not quite shake off the atmosphere and character of the nature he had studied and painted his entire life: the Dutch landscape, with its myriad intimate, quiet moods." from De Sumatra Post, but as you say, that was about his past works. I don't think the article text and hook text are supported by Het Nieuws van den Dag, which is the following reference. TSventon (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Refactored to have the Sumatra Post criticism ("too entrenched in Dutch landscapes") next to the relevant period.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I moved "too entrenched in Dutch landscapes" in and moved it back so someone else can check it. Please address the above.--Launchballer 21:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Johnny Hudgins (nom)

@Procrastineur49, DonCalo, and WikiOriginal-9: Article says "a moonwalk-like step along with a slow-motion spin", but the hook says "the Moonwalk" and these aren't the same thing, and both of the times the articles claim he was known as the Black Charlie Chaplin are attributed. I've also trimmed a couple of aspects.--Launchballer 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Bumped.--Launchballer 21:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I've bumped this to Prep 1 in order to make way for a SOHA. TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Now Prep 6. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Ajax (dog), Pipper (dog), Puppy (sculpture) (nom)

The last 'dog' is a sculpture of a dog. I suppose "12 metres" is a bit of a clue, but I'm going to open this to the floor anyway.--Launchballer 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I am more worried by the lack of a picture of the first dog. TSventon (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Puppy sculpture

Should be an an image hook. Pipper (dog) and Puppy (sculpture) both have usable images and they look great. Let's just run one of the articles though instead of three. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @Unknown Temptation, Generalissima, and Beta Beta Beta: for their takes on the above.--Launchballer 18:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'm showing my inexperience as someone with 16 credits on DYK in six years, but I thought the element of surprise was what gets clicks here. It was OK for me four years ago when the hook was that it wasn't a celebrity, but a statue of him. I would be open to splitting the three across three hooks, as long as Generalissima retains three QPQ credits from the original review. Btw, the lack of a photo of the first dog is, morbidly, because the preserved body is open to the public. I've shown people the photo in real life and they were unaware the dog was even passed. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I think Launchballer is just being cautious and giving people an opportunity to object to the dog sculpture. And thank you for explaining about the preserved body. TSventon (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Part of the delight about this lovely hook is that it includes three various and different dog articles. Including a photo is one of the rare times the surprise of the hook’s end would be spoiled. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 4 (9 September 2026)

List of Kessoku Band live performances (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Harushiga, and Miraclepine: WP:DYKFICTION, surely?--Launchballer 23:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Launchballer: The real-world hook is about a live concert performance instead of a fictional one; maybe "band's concerts" should be changed to "band's live concerts" for clarity. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would also suggest changing it to "band's real-life concerts" (or real-world). Harushiga (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  That works too. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I added 'real-life' and moved it back so someone can double-check.--Launchballer 21:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Bunny Fabrique (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Cbl62, and Miraclepine: Not a DYK showstopper, but [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] deserves {{clump}}.--Launchballer 23:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Launchballer: As the refs are needed to show the fact was widely reported, I've bundled them per WP:CITEBUNDLE. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Miraclepine was concerned that the claimed tie to the French monarchy should not be sourced only to a local Indiana newspaper, so I added further citations showing the breadth of coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Galena Creek Regional Park (nom)

@Crisco 1492, Hurricane Wind and Fire, and Epicgenius: This is a bit too close to 'DYK this product is commercially available' for my liking, got anything else?--Launchballer 23:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

It was used for training before the 1960 Winter Olympics. Sounds more interesting. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

How about "... that a fish hatchery in Galena Creek Regional Park that was last operated in 1949 is an event venue?" – Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I like @Epicgenius's idea and exact rewording, but for @NewAccount7295's suggestion:

"... that Galena Creek Regional Park was used for training for the 1960 Winter Olympics?"

Source: "Galena Creek Recreation Area and Visitor Center". sierranevadageotourism.org. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 03:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Does the rewording or new hook work? Sorry if it seems like I'm impatient. Also do we need to move this discussion elsewhere since you moved the hook to prep 7? 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 21:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I moved the new hook in. I prefer that hooks I alter in this way be double-checked by someone else.--Launchballer 21:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer Thanks for that. However you left the opening part "that a fish hatchery" in prep 7. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 21:53, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

So I did. My mistake.--Launchballer 21:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Halloween set again?

Since it's about a month and a half before Halloween, should we start setting up hooks for a Halloween set in SOHA? Just a thought. Beta Beta Beta - talk 08:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Probably. If people have some now is the time. CMD (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Bio hooks

WP:DYKNA contains an abundance of bio hooks and not as many non-bio hooks at present, at least for the older noms. Do we need to temporarily relax WP:DYKVAR requirements so that we can bio hooks next to each other in order to clear some of them? TarnishedPath^talk 09:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think that would make sense, yeah. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, a temporary relaxation might help us clear the backlog. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Would allowing 6 bios per set be a suitable relaxation? Of the oldest 22 nominations, all but one are bios. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that might be a good short-term measure. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

6/9 seems a bit overwhelming for the 3 trapped outliers, why not do a couple of 9/9s instead? Special bio days, with normal DYKvar for geography and gender etc. CMD (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

How many bios are there in total?--Launchballer 12:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Category:Pending DYK nominations has 195 bio noms out of a total of 394. TSventon (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer, I scrolled past 16 bio hooks before getting to the first non-bio hook. Category:Pending DYK biographies says that 49% of pending hooks are bios. I think the present issue is that a lot of the older hooks are bios, meaning anyone building sets has to do a lot of scrolling to fill the gaps between bios. TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

49% bios tells me that Approved is a bit more bio-loose nearer the bottom. For now, suggest doing nothing.--Launchballer 21:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

If we're going to do nothing then prep builders need to make sure that every second hook in a set is a bio, and that when selecting bios they are picking from the oldest nominations first, or the issue will get worse. TarnishedPath^talk 01:25, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I think we got here because there were some preps earlier in the summer that had very few bio hooks in them. If we don't relax DYKVAR (and it sounds like we may not need to), we need to be disciplined as prep builders at including 4-5 bio hooks in every set until we get the backlog of them down a bit. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)