Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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}}
	v; t; e;

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

DYK queue status

There are currently 6 filled queues. Please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
DYK is running 12-hour sets. There are currently 22 empty slots in the preps, not counting the bottom prep.

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Current time: 12:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 12 hours

Last updated: 14 minutes ago(

)

Shortcut

WT:DYKWT:DYK

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212

• 2011 reform proposals
• 2020 RFC LT Solutions
• All RfCs
• Removed hooks: 2023–24
• Template editor nominations

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 5 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

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

International Women's Day March 8 set

I am interested in putting together a themed set for March 8, which is International Women's Day. Some article ideas for the set (in no particular order) and the article's DYK nomination status are below:

Auckland Women's Suffrage Memorial (approved)
Violets and Vinegar (approved)
Ruth Wagner (approved)
Harley Davidson (song) (awaiting approval)

Would this set be something DYK wants to have? If so, are there other suggestions editors might have to fill this set? Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea.--Laun chba ller 20:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Engle ready to go, but I don't know if she would fit this set. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Since there are several "women did something" hooks at DYK, my plan for this set is to focus on hooks about women's rights or significant milestones for women (like the first female leader of a country). If it gets closer to the date and the set has some empty slots, I think we can backfill with women-does-stuff hooks. Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fab -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need to backfill. I would rather create a new one to meet the requirements of the set. Will try to get something off the ground today. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: What about something like this? Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I would be fine with this if the hook focuses on the advocacy portion, and I think there can be some good hooks on that topic from this article. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will continue working on it (and anyone else is welcome to do so as well). If you want to make suggestions about potential hooks that would be helpful as I can start working them in. My initial concern was that this topic had already been covered on Wikipedia. But I see now, at least on English Wikipedia, that only the names of the researchers and organizations have been discussed, not the subject or problem in any depth. If someone wants to correct me on that, please do so, as I don't want to re-invent the wheel. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Whoa! Information overload. I need to take a break from this for five or so hours. I had no idea there was so much about this subject and it's overwhelming. If someone wants to jump in and make some changes or add more, by all means, please do. Link is here: User:Viriditas/sandbox61. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have left notices on the four hooks proposed for the set, notifying them of this proposal. Z1720 (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Women's Suffrage Memorial contains an image of a copyrighted mural and New Zealand does not have FOP for 2d works. So I don't think it can be listed as approved yet. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: Can you leave a note on the DYK page outlining your concerns? There's lots of time to resolve this. Z1720 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the images off the page, as these seem to be the key thing stopping this page from going through the DYK process. Hopefully this sorts this issue? Let me know if there is anything more I can do. CuriosityKat33 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest Template:Did you know nominations/The Tigress of Forlì? disclaimer: page author and nominator, nom not yet reviewed. A biography (book, not biographical article) about a 15th-century Italian noblewoman. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScalarFactor: I would like first-consideration articles to have a closer connection to the advancement of women's rights or opportunities (suffragette movement, being the first female to accomplish something, declaration concerning advancement of female rights, etc.) If there are still spots available, this would be a good article to backfill with. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I wasn't particularly saving this for anything so I'm completely fine if it goes unused or gets added and then later bumped. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: For future reference, I don't think you need to get prior consensus here for IWD sets – we do them basically every year, afaik. publeek (house • service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 16:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Publeek: I also started this thread so that editors could list potential hooks. I like asking for permission rather than assuming. :) Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Couple that might be useful: Elinor Barker, who I plan on nominating once I've finished with Talk:Elinor Barker/GA1 (I sent you a ping there - not sure why it didn't go through) and the new GA Charlotte Bronte, which I plan on nominating once I've calmed down enough to do a QPQ.--Laun chba ller 13:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Both of these are great in the "woman does stuff" category, which I think will be used to backfill if there aren't enough hooks. For the set, I think it is better to prioritize women and events that concern woman's rights, equality and liberation. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I requested that my nom Template:Did you know nominations/Carla Williams (photographer) be run on IWD. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No child protection enabled on DYK?

Does any Wikipedia employee or automated process review DYK nominations to prevent articles unsuitable for minors being displayed? On Feb 5, 2026 an article for porn star Thea Ehre and the "Porn Film Festival Vienna" was featured. It stood out because I've noticed other articles that I thought I wouldn't want my kids looking at when they're supposed to be doing homework. Don't @me about "freedom of speech" or "open society" - I'm talking about the same safeguards Meta, YouTube, X, etc., are mandated to enforce to prevent minors from accessing harmful images and material. I'm not saying that the articles should be removed from Wikipedia, just that they shouldn't be featured on the main page like other news items and relevant topics. I don't see anything about guidelines in the DYK/Guidelines. What is the policy? If there is no policy, why not? ~2026-80282-3 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED is the policy surrounding things that may be unsuitable for younger readers. ^EF⁵ 17:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There currently isn't any policy preventing adult content on the main page. The long and the short of it is, wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Also of relevance is Wikipedia:Offensive material policy. There is an essay at Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page, but essays are not policies. This is a perennial issue that comes up when certain nominations are viewed as offensive. I've seen editors work to find less controversial hooks in review as a means of controlling content, but outright rejecting an article because it is controversial/perceived as offensive is not allowed under NOTCENSORED policy. At DYK we have comply with the wider guideline4meter4 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has a single photograph, which is not gratuitous in any way, and the Porn Film Festival Vienna article itself does not include explicit written depictions of sex acts. It discusses the subject in a very neutral tone: "Film showings may be followed by live interviews with the filmmakers."

The Main Page is written and maintained by volunteer editors, not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. (This conversation is itself a part of the process.) There is no separate Foundation- or staff-level review of DYK hooks.

The Main Page is covered by the same range of policies and guidelines that apply to other parts of the encyclopedia. A relevant guideline is in the section under WP:GRATUITOUS. A DYK guideline section that covers this is at WP:DYKGRAT. In contrast, Britannica has Britannica Kids for separate target age ranges. For Wikipedia, the closest analogues right now are the third-party projects, like Kiddle, which curate the freely licensed articles here. Kiddle's articles on sex and death illustrate the tradeoff involved: greater suitability for children, but at the cost of significant reduction in educational content. Hope that helps! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Controlling what your children do or do not see is your problem, not ours. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. There was really no need for that rather shitty comment when the OP has already had the situation explained to them courteously. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find their "don't @me" comment and general air of "y'all should do things my way or you're just evil, child haters" attitude far more shitty than anything I have ever said. We should not go easy on attempted censors. Make it clear to them that they are not welcome here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're an unregistered editor and didn't realise that's how things work here (let's face it - it's unusual for a major website). Now they do. Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why anyone would expect an encyclopedia to hide things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

…no, reading the OP, they’re “a concerned neighbour” type who fears we must think of the children before any reasonable logic and wanted to kick off. As noted, why would an encyclopaedia censor anything, and if you’re so scared of kids seeing the word porn, that’s not anyone else’s problem. They’re also delusional if they think teenagers are unaware of porn, and not well-versed in the (useless) age protection laws they cite if they think it means no mention of sex anywhere ever. It’s not a respectful question from someone who didn’t know, it’s a rant to bow to the whims of someone who knows why but doesn’t like it. Kingsif (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief guys. Calm down and don't WP:BITE the new people. Many people who don't edit wikipedia or only encounter the encyclopedia casually through their own limited search interests may not be aware of the darker corners of the encyclopedia. We shouldn't shame people for their ignorance, or be rude when people are culture shocked. We can inform people kindly and respectfully, and then move on without the drama.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I habe no respect for censors. Nor for their apologists.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the same safeguards Meta, YouTube, X, etc., are mandated to enforce to prevent minors from accessing harmful images and material.

You must be joking. May I point you to our article on the alt-right pipeline? Also, please see "The Social Media Addiction Trials Begin" (2026). Reality is a bit different than the world you describe. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the hooks in question here, but I do think we need to avoid leaning too heavily into the NSFW stuff on the main page. The C of E incidents from a few years ago are an example of what can go wrong. I've definitely observed a trend that a lot of the DYK editor base is of the view that titillating = interesting, and while that stuff is going to inherently generate clicks, it's not necessarily encyclopedic. My primary concern to be honest is more with racy images on the main page than a reasonably-worded hook. But we need to keep in mind that there's people who may bring up the Main Page at work or at school, and there's been stuff on the main page in the last year that would have resulted in me getting a trip to the HR office if I had brought the Main Page up at work. Likewise, we want to avoid a situation where the Main Page lands a kid in in-school-suspension for bringing up nudity on a classroom computer without expecting it. If someone wants to click on the link, that's fine, but given that the general expectation is to not find dirty pictures on the home page of Wikipedia, I think there's strong reasons to really think about what DYK, POTD, and TFA run as images. Hog Farm _Talk 00:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples sound more like there are problems at tbe business or school end than at ours. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May someone elucidade me on "the C of E incidents", please? Skyshiftertalk 18:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive324#User:The C of E and DYK.--Laun chba ller 19:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t we say why we’re having special occasion sets?

A little line saying “this is in honour of the 333rd anniversary of the college of William and Mary” (for example) wouldn’t go amiss. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We already say in the first hook "333 years today". I don't see how this is necessary.--Laun chba ller 11:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary no, helpful yes, but I know we’re not really in the habit of helpfully communicating with readers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like at the least for hook sets to try and have an introductory-style hook in the first slot, if possible. I think the William and Mary set does that with the first hook, noting 333rd in another line might be redundant. I can see a stronger case for sets without introductory hooks. At some point for example we must run out of generic Christmas hooks. CMD (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of suggesting this at WP:VPIL. There have been a few occasions when I could clearly tell a DYK set at the main page had a theme but couldn't figure it out to save my life. Barbalalaika 🐌 21:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it would be very easy to end such sets with something like ".... that the above facts are presented in honor of the 333rd anniversary of the college of Williamand Mary?" Heck, I've suggested multiple times before that normal sets should end with "... that the above facts are taken from Wikipedia's newest content?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I love that we have themed sets. It'd be a shame for them to go. I also scan the whole Main Page and it becomes clear why there's the set.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about William and Mary set

Am I the only one who dislikes this 'set'? I agree with Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) that this set was unfair, and frankly, I just find it weird. wound theology ◈ 14:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: commented at WP:ERRORS, but I removed it for not being an actual error. Perhaps @Pbritti: would like to opine.--Laun chba ller 14:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my comment here: I am a bit concerned about the College of William & Mary themed set of today. While I absolutely love themed sets in concepts and would love to see more of them, centering one around an extant organization can easily seem promotional, and I am worried that some readers will come to think we are running an ad or some kind of paid product placement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it absolutely came off as promotional to me. wound theology ◈ 14:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree that the set was intended to be promotional, nor appear as such, I am admittedly confused as to why there was pushback against the Pokémon set idea for being "promotional" (and to be fair, I can see where they were coming from), but this particular set did not have the same kind of pushback on similar grounds. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At least a Pokémon-themed set would have a wide appeal. wound theology ◈ 15:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that people here support an obviously promotional set about a corporate-owned product, but are against that of a university. We definitely live in interesting times. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This might be due to different people contributing in both cases. I would've been just as strongly, if not more, against a Pokémon-themed set. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I do not support a Pokémon themed set. My comment was simply that a Pokémon themed set would have a wider appeal than a themed set about a small college on the east coast, which is objectively true. Personally, I dislike themed sets in general. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth in the future. wound theology ◈ 14:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an appeal to insignificance and an oversimplification. It is not objectively true that the importance of the topic relies on the location or size of the student body, nor does its location or enrollment size reflect or determine its historical or institutional importance. The US Supreme Court only has nine people. According to your criterion, it isn’t important. Size does not determine importance. Viriditas (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything about importance. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth and re-read what I said. It is a simple fact that more readers would care about a Pokémon themed set than one about a small college. Again, the matter of the fact is that I support neither set, so again, stop that. wound theology ◈ 03:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this set is more promotional than the Pokémon one. Pokémon is much more a household name than William and Mary, and it'll be in the news anyway for the anniversary, so DYK isn't really going to do much there, whereas the amount of time W&M is on my mind had skyrocketed thanks to DYK. JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a public university, so I don't think it's promotional as we're not advertising a specific product or thing - if we ran hooks on a for-profit corporation, then yes. HurricaneZeta^C 15:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wound theology: My issue with the set was moreso "I'm not a fan of how our novel special occasion hook sets tend to largely be about the US or the West"; I'd be more open to them if moving forward we do more non-US sets. I've already suggested a Pokémon set for February 27 (which hasn't gained much support unfortunately), and I know Pbritti is working on a Philippines set for June 12 per my suggestion.

I'm more interested if general readers enjoyed the set or found it weird. I remember how, in the past, we ran a special occasion set about an obscure Christian feast (I forgot which one), and the reception to it was negative enough that it actually discouraged us from making special sets outside of the usual scheduled ones like Christmas/Halloween/Women's Day for a while. IIRC, it was actually the set that inspired our current rules regarding sets. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The obscure Christian feast set was about St James the Great and Santiago de Compostela in 2023 and the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 194#Holding area for 25 July. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with feasts (Christian or otherwise) to highlight lesser-known cultural celebrations, but I draw the line at organizations, companies, or anything else that readers might plausibly interpret as an advertisement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the nominations, I actually suggested that the name of the university not be mentioned, but it was the nominator's wish to include it, so I didn't push back on it further. In hindsight, maybe if most of the hooks did not mention the university by name, the set would have avoided more criticism.

@Pbritti: Given that there were concerns raised with the set as it run, are you planning to propose more "custom" sets in the future, or is this planned to be a one-off? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The main page regularly devotes substantial space to topics of political, social, and commercial interest. To encyclopedically cover the world is to directly engage with it. I have a hard time seeing this as promotional, especially as any more promotional than if the same nine hooks had been dispersed over the course of the next two-ish months (which is the approximate DYK cycle length at the moment). I remember hearing through the grapevine that people were a bit upset that my work on Aquilegia made it to DYK every couple weeks early last year. You can't please everyone. As previously stated and discussed on my talk page, I'm hoping to assist with a proposed Filipino set. If it's a lack of diversity that people are concerned about, I'd encourage them to join that set or find another topic area suffering from systematic bias and submit a nom. I'd be happy to help them. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do have two questions Pbritti: is there any particular reason why, of all of the many US universities out there, it is this you decided to propose a special set for and not the others? Do you have a personal connection or attachment to this school, or is it just because of the anniversary and the choice is just a coincidence? It's more because, admittedly, W&M is a rather random choice for a special occasion set, when there are plenty of other American universities that are arguably more deserving. And secondly, in the wake of the reception to the set, are you planning to propose future "novel" sets, or not anymore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per their user page, they graduated from W&M. wound theology ◈ 15:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Without divulging too much about my present employer, I also a researcher unaffiliated with W&M (I have never been paid by W&M or any institution contracted by the college). I studied early colonial history over several classes towards my undergrad history major, most of which utilized the nearby Colonial Williamsburg as a resource. Post-undergrad, I did side work as a researcher while teaching and doing grad school (at the University of Denver, which introduced me to the topic of my first GA). I have since been very lucky to earn enough to now own a large library on Virginian history, with a heavy focus on Colonial Virginia's religious and architectural heritage. Since it comes up in my work life and I have a personal familiarity with it (and, thus, a greater knowledge of where to find information), I've volunteered time to transfer some of the wealth of material hidden in books and academic journals to freely accessible articles here on Wikipedia. I quite resent the modern W&M's management of students, faculty, and research. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think necessarily the idea for the set is wrong. If, for example, someone wanted to do a special occasion set for Harvard, where all the articles have a connection to Harvard, I wouldn't see that as promotional. It would be an issue, however, if all or most of the hooks mentioned Harvard by name, or are otherwise clearly connected to it. So the concerns about the set being seen as promotional (despite it not being the intention) is really more about how the hooks are presented and the subjects involved, rather than simply the idea of an entire set focused on a single organization. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd disagree that naming the institution is an issue, as all of these books would have featured "William & Mary" in them somewhere had I nominated them individually because the subjects are all primarily notable as a result of events or interactions with the college. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mentioning W&M in these hooks are relevant for the theme and the hook itself, and as the involvement of the college adds to the interesting aspects. GGOTCC 21:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time seeing this as promotional, especially as any more promotional than if the same nine hooks had been dispersed over the course of the next two-ish months

From the perspective of a reader, it absolutely does: it's the difference between balanced content (where editors might not notice repetitions, or chalk it up to a dedicated contributor), and a direct focus on a single organization. The problem isn't the number of hooks about W&M in itself, but how they are presented together all at once, which tells the reader that something is going on – and, for someone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, one of the most obvious explanations is a partnership or product placement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I actively avoided articles that are pertinent to W&M as a current institution. This was extremely intentional, as that would be promotional. The only article primarily about something still relevant to the college was that on the William & Mary Quarterly, a reasonably well-regarded academic journal in its niche. If someday the College of William & Mary runs as the TFA, it wouldn't be promotional (heck, we often time such things for anniversaries). That a subject area has an editor who is willing to invest time in it and rapidly expand/create a number of articles is often mistaken for being promotional, when it's in fact exactly how this project was meant to work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that for this reason the set was not promotional. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a set is promotional is kind of a non-issue; I don't think Pbritti was paid to do the set or wanted to promote W&M in any way. But whether it reads as promotional is another question, and that is largely subjective. wound theology ◈ 15:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the latter is my main worry. Also, I'm not sure how it being a reasonably well-regarded academic journal in its niche is relevant to whether the set is/reads as promotional or not. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "unfair” or “weird”? I can’t imagine how either of those words apply or describe the set. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think more context was provided than is usually done via the photo hook. As I said when Pbritti proposed this set, in general I’m going to be supportive if a member of the DYK community has an occasional idea for a custom set. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the Pokémon set/partial set, I think one way to avoid accusations of it being promotional would be to avoid mentioning "Pokémon" by name in the hooks, or including hooks/articles that do not directly mention the series or only have an indirect connection (for example, Cukie Gherkin has proposed running a non-Pokémon game by series developer Game Freak in the set). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these special "custom" sets (i.e. those that are not about the usual scheduled sets like AFD, Christmas, Halloween, IWD, etc.) tend to be controversial at best, I'm starting to wonder if we need to have a proper discussion regarding guidelines for them, perhaps even an RfC. I'm assuming that important national holidays (for example, our past Canada Day set, or the Papua New Guinea set and the proposed Philippines set) will generally be uncontroversial. However, from experiences, it has been less so for "special" cases like this W&M case, or more notoriously the English royals set we ran in the wake of Queen Elizabeth's death. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is approximately as Dclemens1971 put it. I can't imagine ever single-handedly putting up the noms for a themed set and I would discourage the community from ever accepting such a set repeatedly from the same editor. However, once-in-a-blue-moon themed sets seem like a fun bit of variety that encourage improvements to certain subject areas the same way that WikiProject month-long drives can. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I think what we should be doing is we should first have !votes on whether or not approve such set requests, then only work on them once there is consensus to run them. This is in contrast to the usual practice where the proposer ends up working on the articles in advance already and people just go along with it. That may seem more bureaucratic, but it would at least ensure that such sets have broad support, and any objections or concerns are already taken into account in advance. Take, for example, last month's MLK Day set where the vote on running it came after work already started. While we cannot please everyone, ideally we'd at least want to minimize objections. WT:DYK is a bit of an echo chamber, and it's not unusual for us to propose ideas, hooks, or sets that were seemingly uncontroversial here, but were objected to once they actually ran. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I'm ok with themed sets, but basing an entire collection around a single school is not a good idea. It does come across as a violation of WP:NOTPROMO/ WP:DYKNOT (third bullet point). We're here now, so we should let it be, but in future we should ban any sets centered around a single organization/institution, for profit or non-profit. WP:DYKSO should probably add a sentence to this effect. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given the response to this set, I'm wondering if, instead of a full Pokémon set for February 27, a partial set would be a reasonable compromise (maybe 3-4 hooks at most). There would still be multiple hooks, but they wouldn't dominate the set, and it would be less likely to be seen as promotional, especially if my suggestion about avoiding direct name-drops to the series or making the article subjects more indirect help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I am going to say no to a Pokemon half set even. It's a product, and WP:DYKNOT (third bullet point) is something we can't/shouldn't ignore. Those will need to be split into separate queues. That set should never have been approved.4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That set has yet to be approved; in fact, it was objected to on promotional grounds (the current objection to this set). Perhaps at most two hooks can run then, since those can be treated as regular special occasion hooks rather than a partial set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A couple hooks would be ok.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At that point, why have them all on the same set? GGOTCC 22:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the example of "product launches" is meant to avoid being DYKs meant to promote a product launch. I don't think having a day set aside to focus on a brand necessarily entails promotion thereof as much as celebration. That said, I'm not going to lose sleep if consensus opposes a Pokémon DYK day. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a harder interpretation of those two policies, then a ban on DYK hooks about politicians or professionals may be in order. Since DYK bans negative hooks about living people, any hook about a current politician is inherently promotional as it puts a positive/unique aspect of the person in front of thousands of readers. This promotion would then benefit a politician's PR, or the perception of an artist, or the popularity of an author. GGOTCC 21:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually thought someone had hacked the front page at first. It does look promotional, regardless of the intention. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I'm fine with themed sets, I just think they come off as promotional when they are about a specific entity. Ones for holidays, like April Fool's, don't show that aspect as there's nothing to be promotional about. ^EF⁵ 21:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we feature articles on music artists and their albums at TFA, is that promo? Of course not. Is it good faith to assume that an editor was bought off after they went through the proper channels of getting consensus, writing and nominating the articles, and fulfilling the other necessary steps? Of course not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: "Is it good faith to assume that an editor was bought off..." Just who are you suggesting made such an assumption? DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You. See this edit. GGOTCC 21:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: see joke. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: If you want to make your statement clear, this is your chance to do so. If you want to withdraw it, this is the place. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Can I buy you a dictionary? You can look "joke" up in it if I do. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: one editor to another, you should probably take a step back and think about if your comments were productive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: I get that you're upset that the reaction to your special day wasn't as unanimously joyful as you had anticipated. But accusing people of bad faith for raising their concerns about the appearance of having a DYK full of one university is really unhelpful. And assuming a throwaway comment about Wikipedia was an attack on you is just silly. You could have had a William and Mary hook in DYK every day for a week and I doubt there would have been any hoo-hah. But a whole DYK for one subject is too much. It is so much out of the ordinary that it looks off. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure if spreading out the W&M hooks over multiple days would be well-received either. We've already received complaints about running too many Jilly Cooper hooks, and those were not even run in a single set. It got to the point that, now, any hooks about her books avoid mentioning her by name. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are unfamiliar with the community's policies. Please see WP:ASPERSIONS and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as it is inappropriate to make accusations about blockable offensives towards other users without good reasoning. GGOTCC 22:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused anyone of a blockable offence. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, your comments are the highest praise I've received today. Thank you. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, someone explained jokes to you, good first effort. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is if assumed by a non-Wikipedia reading the main page — they don't know anything about our background process. Maybe they think the WMF was bought off to run the hooks. Most people probably don't even know on what basis the articles are chosen to run in DYK and probably wonder why they've never seen any well-known fun facts on bigger topics there. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of William & Mary in my life, and probably millions of Wikipedia readers haven't either, especially if they are not American. A themed set based on a single institution should never exist. It is not comparable to themed sets about Christmas and other comemorative days. This should've never been a themed set. Skyshiftertalk 21:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I really hope you learned something about the second oldest college in the US, one that produced dozens of important figures in US culture and politics and has probably had an outsized impact on your life without you even knowing it. The reception from readers seems to be pretty good from what's searchable online and nobody seems to think that this is "promotional" except for those present here. I'd far rather a few editors sling veiled accusations (not you, Skyshifter, your critique is entirely reasonable, even if I disagree) and have evidence of an educated readership than not have done the work that was necessary for this set. I will always consider it a success. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U.S., U.S., U.S... that might actually be the biggest problem with this set. AFAIK the DYK people arranging the sets try to avoid American bias and try to include hooks from other countries in the queues/sets. But here we are with a 100% American set about a single institution. Sure, it may be important in U.S. history, it may be one of the oldest in the U.S., and all that. But I think we are all tired of American bias here (at least I'm sure the non-Americans, like me, are). Themed sets like April Fools or even Christmas can have cultural diversity with hooks from all around the world. "Reception from readers" — Correct me if I'm wrong but they are probably all (or vast majority) Americans, I'd like to see the reception from other countries. Back when I edited Portuguese Wikipedia, I am 100% sure if we did some all-Brazilian themed anything, Portugal editors would be pissed. DYK is here (or at least, I see it that way) to show our readers all Wikipedia can offer, displaying all the different topics and cultures our articles cover. This set is not that. Skyshiftertalk 22:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the choir. I've already signed on to assist with a Filipino set and expressed willingness to assist with any other sets that I could reasonably be helpful for. We must be the change we want to see, keep nominating DYKs from under-appreciated subject areas! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue doing that, thank you. Skyshiftertalk 22:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter, I just spend the last several days trying to put together a diverse international DYK set and it was extremely difficult. There are few women represented in any hooks other than the US and Commonwealth countries, for example. I was amazingly lucky to find a single woman candidate from Japan for my set. While it is certainly valid to make accusations of US bias, when it comes down to it, the people who levy these accusations are rarely contributing hooks to alleviate this bias. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth is already better than U.S., not gonna lie. This is not an accusation, but rather a fact. And as a Brazilian, I have contributed several Brazilian hooks in the past, you can check. It is true though that it has been a while since I have nominated a hook. And I won't lie that I contribute to the bias when I sometimes work on American articles rather than those related to my own country. But that's how the world is. Most of the media I consume is American because that's how the world turned out to be. So I understand that it is difficult. But in this case we're talking about a single institution of that country, not even "different topics on the same country" at least. Skyshiftertalk 23:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have several ideas on how to improve the diversity of sets if you are interested. Maybe we could talk about this later on one of our talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Skyshiftertalk 23:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the people who levy these accusations are rarely contributing hooks to alleviate this bias is an irrelevant nonsequitor. wound theology ◈ 14:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly added a sentence to WP:DYKCRIT; please feel free to refine, or remove and start an RfC if you really want. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on the new responses, I have a few thoughts.

First, I tuned out of the previous discussion after a while, so I am not sure if Pbritti being a W&M alumnus was brought up before. If it wasn't, it makes me wonder if the discussion would have turned out differently had that been mentioned; obviously it would not be a COI, people are always free to contribute about the school they graduated from, but it would have added more context to the request.

Second, Pbritti said he considers the set running a success. Considering the multiple complaints raised here, and it has now led to similar sets being discouraged going forward, I'm not sure if I would agree with that sentiment, unless this could be considered somewhat of a pyrrhic victory.

Thirdly, the fallout from this is making me reiterate the prior suggestion: any novel sets require consensus or approval before being worked on. I think part of the reason why the W&C set was approved was because Pbritti already pledged to work on such articles in advance, so editors went along with it rather than saying no. Novel sets like this already have a controversial past like with the St. James and English royals set. AJ29's addition works, since it doesn't ban novel sets outright, but moving forward it would at least be good to know they won't be objected to, or any objections are taken into account.

Finally, given the reception to the set has not been as positive as anticipated, it would be good to hear from other editors who supported running the set in the prior discussion and them giving input on what happened here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's how a post mortem works. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have been on my phone today so less able to dive in here, but I'm back at my laptop, so let's review the fairly recent discussion that led to this set. Pbritti kicked things off with a request for a set a month ago. Looking back over the discussion that ensued, Naruto was skeptical, Darth Stabro, Guerillero and I were supportive and Chipmunkdavis asked a question but didn't comment further. Viriditas, Launchballer, Rjjiii and Jeromi Mikhael commented only in the section breaking off the discussion about a Philippines-related set for June. Counting those discussing Pbritti's proposal specifically, I see four editors in favor of the idea, one skeptical/opposed and one who didn't comment on the merits. That counts as a rough consensus in a conversation that lasted a week. (Pinging only those who haven't commented yet in today's discussion.)

I have no reason to change my perspective on why I was supportive: Wikipedia in general, and DYK in particular, is powered by enthusiasm. If someone who, like Pbritti, is a regular, helpful and creative contributor to this corner of Wikipedia brings an idea for a set that taps into their enthusiasm, I'm going to support it. I'm also on record above appreciating the Jilly Cooper hooks, even though her writing's not really my cup of tea, because I learn something from them and because I enjoy seeing Lajmmoore's enthusiasm for the subject.) As long as the hooks are interesting and otherwise compliant with the guidelines, I think we can all benefit from fostering the continued enthusiasm of DYK participants within the framework of the existing guidelines. Stanching enthusiasm is a way to discourage our volunteers over time

I wouldn't support if Pbritti's requests were frequent, but they aren't. I've never seen him make a special occasion set request before, and this truly appears to be a one-off and Pbritti acknowledged in his opening request that this is a big ask. I wouldn't support this kind of hook if it weren't made by someone who's a regular contributor to DYK (in part because it's harder to evaluate if the intent would be promotional or if the execution would be of sufficient quality). Pbritti's connection to W&M is disclosed on his userpage and I suspect is known to anyone who regularly interacts with him, and knowing his track record of positive DYK participation, I had no doubt about the propriety of his request.

Some editors often ask why DYK runs so many hooks about molly fish or US modernist architecture or Indonesian diplomats or Jilly Cooper books or Genshin Impact characters. The reason is simple: that's what individual editors who volunteer at DYK are enthusiastic about. If editors don't like the mix of hooks we run, the answer isn't to shut down other people's enthusiasms; it's to contribute their own enthusiasms to this corner of the project. And that gets to my final point. I see many people in the thread above with criticism of the set itself and the process that led to it. It's clear there was a rough (if lightly attended) consensus to run this set. I invite people with concerns about DYK processes but who aren't regulars here to watchlist and join in the conversations on this page in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One issue that manifested itself with happened is that WT:DYK can sometimes act like an echo chamber. When there are proposals, only those who support end up commenting, while those who are indifferent or oppose are either unwilling to speak out, or are uninterested in doing so. Meanwhile, when concerns do happen, it's either from editors who were not able to comment last time, or more commonly, editors from outside DYK. Because DYK decisions are often agreed upon by fellow DYK editors and less often by those outside the community, when we do run stuff, we run into friction with outsiders. It's why most of the complaints about Jilly Cooper hooks, radio hooks, and now the W&C set came not from DYK regulars but rather outsiders.

I think one thing we can learn from this experience is that there are times we may also need to take into account outsiders' opinions. We don't always have to agree with them or even implement them, but an outsider's feedback can work as a check against what we take for granted, and also give additional scrutiny. It's part of the reason why WP:ERRORS exists: DYK, ITN, OTD, etc. editors may have missed something, and it's up to outsiders to bring it up. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I get it -- if there is an actual error, or a violation of a P&G, an outside critique makes sense. Neither applied here. So if people who don't participate in DYK want to critique our processes, they should come participate here first and get to know this corner of the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you don't want any outsiders telling you what they think. How long should they participate before being allowed to offer an opinion? DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A horizontal process that relies on the power exerted solely from the participants without recourse to a top-down, higher authority is based on what everyone participating thinks. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill, thanks for the least charitable interpretation of what I said. Personally, I don't make it my business to go to other parts of Wikipedia and tell them what they're doing wrong. I trust that they have processes for a reason. If I'm curious, I ask questions. I observe how things work. I avoid "jokingly" accusing other editors of being paid off by another entity. Then, once I have a decent level of familiarity, I might suggest improvements to a process.

At DYK, outsiders (your word, not mine) are absolutely welcome here, anytime. I was one myself about nine months ago. It is admittedly an odd area of the project with lots of unwritten conventions, and it took me a while to understand how things work. I don't think there's any set timeline for a newbie to begin offering opinions, but one should have some grasp of how (and why) things operate around here, just as they should with new page review, AfC, AIV, SPI, EotW, ITN, edit filters, various Wikiprojects, or just about any other area of the project. In that spirit, please consider this my invitation to nominate an article or two, review a few nominations, promote a hook to a prep area, and get a sense for things. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was sent here from ERRORS. Had I known what it was like, I wouldn't have bothered coming. Anyway, I didn't come here to critique your processes, and I don't believe I've said anything about them. It was the result I was unhappy with. But I just read the front page, so I suppose I don't count. DuncanHill (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you did offer a critique (although suggesting that there was DYK payola is an implicit critique). You did choose to misinterpret my remarks in your reply, which is why I felt it necessary to clarify the point. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"if there is an actual error, or a violation of a P&G, an outside critique makes sense. Neither applied here. So if people who don't participate in DYK want to critique our processes, they should come participate here first and get to know this corner of the project" You're saying that outsiders aren't welcome to criticise without prior participation That's not choosing to misinterpret you, that's exactly what you said. DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this conversation is getting a bit off track - friendly reminder to everybody that sarcasm and jokes are hard to get across in a text based platform. Most small communities get a bit insular and echo chambery, but there's only one solution to that AFAICT- so, please, @DuncanHill, do watchlist WT:DYK and, if you'd like, the DYK queues! If you see an issue with a hook, or set of hooks, bringing it up on this page is the best way to gets eyes on it. Nobody's a mind reader, and your input is valuable. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

↓Echo chamber↓ DuncanHill (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word choice below does have some delicious irony (sorry, @Darth Stabro, but that's objectively the funniest verb you could have chosen!) -- but the solution is the same: get involved, and be the change you wish to see in the DYK world. You typically get better reception the earlier you raise the issue (see:before hook hits queues/preps). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to DYK, this is one of the most fractious groups of editors I’ve seen. Mostly polite, but we have lots of disagreements, both here at WT:DYK and in individual nom pages. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I echo everything Dclemens1971 said. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps we need to tighten up on what is required for a themed set to occur.TarnishedPath^talk 03:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will propose the first tentative requirement: by default, all themed sets should be collaborative, and should not be the work of a single contributor. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about a formal requirement, (I think the Papua New Guinea Set was mostly the work of CMD?) but I think that's a good idea - more editors typically means more diversity in hook and article topics and styles, indicates that the topic is of broad enough interest to appeal to a wider audience, and, worst come to worst, if somebody doesn't like the fact that there is a themed set, it's not just one editor getting pushback. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glad there is at least one person that understands me. You're on my list now. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that the PNG set was not meant to be mostly the work of CMD. I was experimenting with creating a set to encourage other edits in the topic, which was not as successful as I hoped. CMD (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be overly prescriptive and may limit our ability to run sets on underrepresented subject matter where there may not be a critical mass of interested/knowledgeable editors to make the set collaborative. (Case in point, the PNG set, which was great.) Moreover, there's a lot of collaboration that happens through the review/promote/queue process so there are still plenty of eyes. If we need to get more eyes on a proposal for a custom themed set, we could suggest that any themed set outside of some standard menu (Halloween, Christmas, what else runs every year?) get approval via consensus from a discussion with at least 10 (or insert other number here) editors participating in the discussion. This may address a concern in my comment above that Pbritti's W&M set, while receiving a consensus to run, had a lightly attended discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it is a good idea on practice, on paper it might prove difficult since not everyone has the interest or drive to work on a specific topic. However, there is one potential outcome from this, though whether it is an upside or a downside depends on perspective: it would encourage broader topics as opposed to more narrow ones. So for example, instead of a William & Mary set, we would instead have a set on American education in general. I imagine though that such a set might still get pushback, especially since it's America-focused, but it would at least address that specific concern.

Thinking about it, one thing I have noticed, which was also echoed above by Skyshifter, is that there tends to be more pushback on these kinds of sets if the topic in question is American or Western. I imagine if we will have guidelines regarding novel special occasion sets moving forward, the rules can be loosened for non-American or Western topics, although exactly how would remain the topic of further discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While a few editors have expressed concerns, the bases of these concerns are not identical and can be addressed individually. We have some legitimate arguments, like the position above that says the set shouldn't be unilateral. I don't see this as an issue, though, as no one was prevented from assisting with this (or any) set and DYK is an inherently collaborative process requiring at least two steps of third-party engagement. Other arguments are concerned about perception but don't really point to anything but their own subjective perception as evidence. We, as editors, as hyper attuned to potential concerns; we shouldn't mistake that useful instinct for evidence of a genuine issue. The third category boils down to the personal mud-slinging, largely emanating from forums like this and the like who do not intend to contribute meaningfully, but instead undermine the legitimate by behaving imprudently. As I said before, I would not propose another set again: I wanted this as the one-and-done thing where I offered an extended period of maximum effort to address a serious coverage gap on the project that could be remedied with assets I had to hand. And I would encourage other editors to not be dissuaded by the comments above. A themed hook every couple months is probably good for Wikipedia, and no meaningful evidence to the contrary has been raised here. (Repeatedly edit-conflicted, so sorry if I messed up someone's formatting) ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the issue of systematic bias, we have to have an idea of what a realistic ideal end-state is. English Wikipedia is, unsurprisingly, largely male American English speakers writing on topics they are capable of writing on. As such, we will inevitably have more hooks from subjects that reflect this bias than don't. How to address this is not to discourage the beneficial content work in those subject areas, but to encourage other content work. DYK could host public drives for topics that receive inadequate coverage. It could reward new editors working on novel topic areas with special barnstars. Heck, just send a bit of wikilove any time you see someone nominate something you wouldn't have ever heard of otherwise. By imposing limits, we're going the wrong way. We need to open more doors. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How should DYK deal with special occasion sets moving forward?

It's probably time that we have a formal discussion (if not an RfC) on how to deal with special occasion sets moving forward. AirshipJungleman29's change works, but that only addresses sets that could be possibly perceived as promotional, but not the concept as a whole. As stated before, special occasion sets have had a checkered history on DYK, with the Santiago de Compostela and English royals sets being two notable examples. The above discussion has given some ideas, and perhaps we can discuss them in more detail, or suggest new ones. Some of the suggestions above include:

Discouraging hook sets that are solely about an organization, group, or individual.
Requiring special occasion sets to be worked on by multiple editors.
Special occasion sets must first be approved before work can start.
Requiring a quorum (for example, at least 10 participants) before approving a special occasion set.

Each of these ideas have merit, although they also have their weaknesses (for example, 10+ participants might be too high of a bar, especially for more niche or underrepresented topics). We also probably need to codify the usual scheduled special occasion sets in the guidelines so that there is no need to start a new discussion approving them each time. Meaning we should mention Christmas, Halloween, and International Women's Day; we could even add new ones to that list, although via discussion, of course. This is not intended to be an RfC, but rather for us to brainstorm about our next steps. Special occasion sets have long been a source of controversy, so if there's a time for us to discuss them and their future, that time is now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a quorum of some sort for approval. Not sure of the number I'd place it at though.

I wouldn't support requiring multiple editors to work on sets though as that would have ruled out the PNG set. TarnishedPath^talk 05:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested at least 10 participants in a given discussion, with consensus found from among those participating (ie you don’t necessarily need 10 supports). Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The third proposal is already part of the process (whether implicitly or explicitly), but having it more clearly codified can't hurt. I like the fourth proposal, if only so that those who might ask "who decided this?" can be shown a clear answer for both the sake of ending that often tendentious line of questioning and forcing accountability when there's a legitimate reason for concern. I'd encourage lowering the threshold from 10 to 7 for the quorum; DYK team members seem to have fluctuating availability and any group of seven people strongly supporting something on such a public page should be able to form a consensus if there is no opposition. The first proposal is overly broad; we should not have full sets on a single person or corporate interests, but "organizations" or "groups" may accidentally preclude topics almost all editors would be fine with, like the Olympics or a major cultural grouping. I would leave it at banning sets on "people and corporate interests" and allow individual discussions to sort out the rest. Since any set is inevitably the product of multiple people, I would hate to tell someone who wrote a set on Guinea-Bissau that they have to find someone else willing to write an article in that subject area. Again, individual consensuses can impose that kind of restriction on a set should a reasonable concern be raised. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there is anyway to enforce "no work can begin". Functionally, the only thing that encourages is editors to draft off-wiki and then add an article all in one go once it has been approved. If it meant as in "no hooks can be submitted prior to being approved", then I just don't know if that has benefit. A decent number of the MLK Day hooks were submitted by editors with no involvement in its proposal weeks before it occurred. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree on that. I think we could prohibit the assemblage of hooks into preps/queues but anything more would downright counterproductive. We want people writing articles, and it doesn't take a lot to dissuade someone (especially new editors) to give up on their hard work if they're told that they can't pass go until a bureaucratic process separate from article creation/expansion is complete. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the third proposal, a way we could proceed is to seek broader input from outside WT:DYK itself (for example, link to the themed set discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)), to avoid an insular effect. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to that was raised about the Pokémon set, with a link to the discussion being posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). It's a bit interesting to me that the consensus for running it there was arguably stronger than the one here, and that this discussion here appears to have a strong consensus against running it. 1brianm7 (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Village pump proposal? I am only aware of the discussion at WT:VG. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah (link), Fram asked for wider input on whether the set was promotional/advertorial. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a spicy hot take — no special occasion sets at all, barring the standard Christmas, April Fools and Halloween. Wikipedia is one of the world's largest websites, and as such is seen as sort of immutable and projects the feeling that it shouldn't be influenced by anything but the largest, most culturally influential dates. Other large websites might give their logo a Santa hat for Christmas, but probably wouldn't change it for Papua New Guinea Independence Day, even if it is the 50th one. I'm finding it difficult to precisely word this feeling, but it seems slightly unprofessional for Wikipedia to bend over backwards to honour the 333rd anniversary of some American college (even if it is fairly important). Feel free to rip my opinion to shreds. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special sets for Christmas and Halloween but not for Papuan independence doesn't sound very WP:CSB. Aren't we supposed to be working towards less Western bias? Tangential: the Papuan set was memorable. I remember I was sitting in a tempo in the morning when I saw it on the main page. I very rarely remember small stuff like this. Special sets are cool and fine, the one currently under discussion was also fine. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what consensus draws the line regarding what is and isn't appropriate for sets, I think that a set of similar scope and contributions to that of the Papuan set should be permitted. It was my favorite set that I didn't contribute towards and it's awesome to see that other editors remember it so fondly months on. CMD deserves every laud they can receive for that set. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - CMD, you did an awesome job on that. (And even if the reception to the W&M set didn't turn out perfectly @Pbritti, you should also feel proud of all the work you put in to improve the encyclopedia as part of it! Better than anything I've done this month, that's for certain) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 22:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my opinion is a bit extreme, so I'm not really going to be defending it, but Christmas and Halloween are, whether you like it or not, international holidays that are widely celebrated, whereas Papua New Guinea Independence Day isn't. JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised no one has proposed doing a regular scheduled set for Eid Al-Fitr and/or Eid Al-Adha yet. If we can have a regular scheduled set on perhaps the most famous Christian holiday of all, there's no reason why we can't do something similar for the world's second-largest religion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I suggested one just below! But definitely agree with the sentiment. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that proposal was actually a response to this discussion. Looking back on this, I'm wondering if one reason why there was so much pushback against the set was not necessarily because it is about a university, but moreso which university specifically. If it was instead about, for example, Harvard or Oxford, would the criticism and concerns be the same? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been a bit less pushback, since a set about a more well-known university would naturally appear more "natural", but I would still be uncomfortable with it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discourage hook sets that are solely about an organization, group, or iindividual. wound theology ◈ 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a set for International Women's Day, and a couple years ago, there was a hook set for museums for International Museum Day that I think DYK liked. I also enjoyed the Summer Olympics sets in 2024, though that was a lot of work. I think limiting special occasion sets to the three major holidays would be a detriment to this project by not allowing these types of sets to be created. I like the idea of limiting the sets that would have hooks from multiple geographic regions (no special hooks for specific countries) and only to signify a specific holiday or event (Christmas, Ramadan, Olympics, etc.) Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I really like that last idea! The Olympics might be borderline (as it's an organization rather than just a cultural event), but for cultural holidays or events celebrated throughout the world, I could absolutely see sets working well (like a Ramadan-themed set on Eid al-Fitr). I'm not opposed to sets for individual countries (like the PNG one) if we take care of avoiding Western bias there, although these would probably be one-offs instead of getting repeated every year. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics is a major commercial event -- and one with a checkered past. From aggressive trademark enforcement all the way to stuff like the USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal, the IOC's response to the Disappearance of Peng Shuai, the 2024 participation of Israel, the choice to hold the 2014 games in Sochi... the list goes on. It's just bias that we editors are okay with promoting it but not other commercial entities. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 18:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus was in favour of restricting Olympic-sets, I would not be too bothered. I oppose country-specific sets, even if its non-Western countries, as I'm think this will lead to a slippery slope of editors arguing for a Fourth of July set for USA (which would be problematic for Wikipedia, to say the least). A "country-specific" restriction would probably also prevent special event sets for those celebrated in one place like Guy Fawkes Day or Juneteenth. However, if DYK wanted country-specific sets I would only be a little bothered and would propose a Canada Day set for July 1. In earlier comments, some editors suggested only allowing special occasion for Christmas/Hallowe'en/April Fools: I am opposed to this narrow restriction and think it should be more broad. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... I'm not going to advocate banning Olympic themed sets - I dislike the organization, sure, but I can't deny that it incentivizes a lot of editors to write a lot of content about athletes from all over the world, which I think is more important. I just don't like the idea of allowing a carve out for them if we do go down the route of discouraging organization and event themed DYK sets/special occasions.

Related, I wouldn't want a Fourth of July set every year, or for it to be all guns, eagles, and jingoism -- but the recent MLK day set we did, whilst American, was, I think, pretty well received. I think there's ways to do it without being problematic. Getting a few National Heritage Fellowship winners up to DYK standards probably wouldn't even be noticed by the general public, something Civil Rights related, and obviously I think something or somebody related to the Treaty of Manila (1946) would be great, given the shared date. I'm sure other, smarter, people could find cool subjects to write about. But I suppose I'm digressing.

And much like you'd like to do a Canada set, I'd love to someday con y'all into letting me do something Alaska/arctic, anti-racism, or Indigenous peoples themed for Elizabeth Peratrovich Day one year, which we have on February 16.... Not sure if you'd think that too local/niche, @Z1720? I think I can scope it broad enough, but what's your opinion on more vague, open ended themes like that? Or anybody's elses opinion, too? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 22:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on Canadian Inuit. I’d love to collaborate later this year on a set on the Arctic more broadly or perhaps the indigenous peoples of the arctic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more general indigenous peoples set would work, and that's something I've had a lifelong interest in, so I would be happy to contribute. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: I'd prefer an Indigenous set for International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, which is a bit more broad and allows more hooks to be explored. I'm always down to help with any article concerning Canadian history: just let me know the article and I can get to work. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My sense of this broader conversation is that there is still support for doing custom sets and that we are ok with custom sets done by one person if they are as good as the PNG set. Perhaps the only thing there’s consensus to change here is to adopt Airship’s amended guideline about sets not focusing on an organization? Proposers already need to seek consensus at DYKT. (My interest here, as expressed above, is in affirming, not quenching, the enthusiasms that powers DYK.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We already did a Canada Day set a while back as a one-off, although I don't think it's a good idea to make it a regular thing. We do have the upcoming Semiquincentennial anniversary of July 4, 1776, so I wouldn't be too opposed to a one-off US-based Fourth of July set, but I would suspect that it would raise concerns over systemic bias, even if this time it is more understandable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A valuable lesson in reader attention

I was glad to see that we were doing something out-of-the-box and trying a themed set on a (relatively speaking) niche topic. Promotionality concerns aside, I think the decision to try it was a good one, but I think we got some data that says we should probably not try something like this again. We can reach many more people by maintaining set variety. Here is the stats table for the set:

Article	Date	views	vph	DYK hook
Carlo Bellini	2026-02-08	7,520	313.4	... that Thomas Jefferson pushed William & Mary to hire a man with little linguistic ability as its first professor of modern languages?
Charter of the College of William & Mary	2026-02-08	4,323	180.1	... that the College of William & Mary was established by royal charter (pictured) 333 years ago today?
Orlando Jones (politician)	2026-02-08	3,453	143.9	... that Orlando Jones, the maternal grandfather of Martha Washington, was one of William & Mary's first students?
1699 May Day orations	2026-02-08	2,414	100.6	... that five speeches by William & Mary students helped to move Virginia's capital and establish Williamsburg?
Denver Mills	2026-02-08	2,386	99.4	... that Denver Mills, the first underclassman to be captain of the William & Mary football team, also played in the army and a single NFL game?
Chandler Court and Pollard Park Historic District	2026-02-08	2,188	91.2	... that Chandler Court and Pollard Park, which were designed and occupied by William & Mary faculty, have been called "two of Williamsburg's most appealing twentieth-century neighborhoods"?
Richard Lee Morton	2026-02-08	1,950	81.3	... that Richard Lee Morton became the head of the College of William & Mary's history department after two years of teaching?
Althea Hunt	2026-02-08	1,736	72.3	... that Althea Hunt founded the William & Mary Theatre, but discouraged students from trying to make a career of it?
William and Mary Quarterly	2026-02-08	1,492	62.1	... that William & Mary's president was unable to get the college to fund the William and Mary Quarterly, so he paid for it himself?

Notes

This is, I'm sorry to say, a shockingly poor performance for a DYK set. Just for reference – last month, the average non-image hook received 318.8 views per hour, and the lowest image hook received 289.8 views per hour. That means that not only did the image hook fall below every January and February (so far) image hook by a wide margin, every single one of these hooks would have placed in the bottom half of last month's hooks. In January, 9 hooks (3.3%) fell below 100 views per hour. This set had five, for a full 55%.

To be clear, I don't think this is because the hooks were bad. They're pretty solid, if not my favorite ever. But I think one takeaway from this set is that DYK has a variety rule for a good reason: our audience is not a faceless set of generally curious individuals with uniform preferences. Like every non-niche publication, our audience is segmented, and all nine hooks in this set apparently only appealed to something like a third of our readers at the expense of the other two-thirds. Variety helps us hit as many segments of the audience as possible. Similar hooks compete in the same markets and split readership. That's a good thing to keep in mind as we talk about suggestions for future sets and build preps in general. publeek (service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 02:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(p.s.: it is perfectly possible to create a set that has both theme and variety. The Transgender Day of Remembrance set did quite well because it wasn't obsessively focused on transgender topics per se – it did a great job of highlighting the diverse backgrounds, achievements, and pursuits of transgender people. compare & contrast this set.) publeek (service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 02:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this set and the hooks that ran, I can now see where the "this set is promoting W&M" concern is coming from, even if it was not the intention. All of the hooks mention W&M by name, which I personally think is overkill. Even when I was proposing the Pokémon anniversary set, I was explicitly stating that the hooks should avoid mentioning Pokémon by name whenever possible, to at least make the set feel more natural and less upfront (since that set is not going to happen, that's water under the bridge, but this is food for thought). I'm wondering if the set would have been better received if the hooks (not the subjects) had more variety and did not mention the school by name. Seeing the school's name repeated across all nine hooks makes it seem repetitive and in your face.

To be honest, I'm going to be frank here: several hooks here are simply not interesting to a broad audience regardless of the connection to W&M. I personally would have not approved the Orlando Jones and Richard Lee Morton hooks as written. I also would have deleted the mention of W&M from the Five Speeches, Denver Mills, and Chandler Court and Pollard Park hooks (the others are specifically about W&M connections so deleting them would be harder, other than going with other hook facts instead). I actually raised this concern with the Denver Mills hook in the nomination and said the school should not be mentioned, but the nominator wanted it.

If we're going to do another special set on one topic, and to be honest I'm not sure if it will happen again after the reception to this one, it should definitely be of more variety and does not put necessarily put the topic front-and-center. It's not the same with the Papua New Guinea set since that was at least about an entire country, and not all of the hooks namedropped PNG. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those statistics are interesting. Thank you for collecting them. I wonder how much of the poor performance is due to every hook mentioning "William & Mary", possibly causing readers to gloss over them, (e.g., would ... that the May Day orations helped to move Virginia's capital and establish Williamburg? have out-performed what we ran.) or is it a result of the topics being more similar than what we usually run (ignoring the fact that they all relate to W&M). 1brianm7 (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that it's a mix of the two. Two of the hooks (Orlando Jones and Richard Lee Morton) had objectively bad hook facts, and that would have been the case even if the school in question was something like Princeton or Yale. The promoted Denver Mills hook was also, frankly, not the more interesting hook (the railroad one was the better hook here, and even the nominator was open to it; courtesy ping to HurricaneZeta as the promoter). As for the other hooks, not mentioning the school would have helped, especially the speeches one, even if the actual hook fact was fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was the reviewer, not the promoter for that one, but in retrospect maybe it would've performed better. HurricaneZeta^C 21:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proof of the hook is in the viewing, and it's clear that this set was too niche for the main page. I don't mind that we experimented with it, but the results don't suggest we try something this narrow again, even if suggested by an experienced DYK participant. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even William & Mary, despite being the focus of these hooks, only gained 11k views through the set. Readers ~~may be~~ are very fickle, but this shows a general disinterest in the subject. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson there is "don't link unbolded articles". I'd be raging if someone added a link to a hook I'd submitted and that article got more than the one I'd submitted.--Laun chba ller 12:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The unbolded link in my Helen Essary hook got twice as many clicks as the boldlink (and I have no one to blame but myself for that one) but ever since I’ve been much more judicious in the use of supplemental links. As has been pointed out, people can get to the other topic by clicking the bold link. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the reason why DYK nominators want to add non-bold links is so that they also draw attention to the side article, effectively acting as a double-nom. Of course anything under MOS:OL (such as countries and things everyone knows) would not be linked. As an example for my first DYK nom in April 2024, cozy game (boldlink) got 15.4k views while Animal Crossing: New Horizons (non-boldlink) got 6935 even though ACNH was there first: "that Animal Crossing: New Horizons sparked a boom in the popularity of cozy games"? So it does go to show that the first linked hook is not always the most popular. And readers not editing (or at least not involved with DYK) don't even see whether or not the links have bold formatting or not. JuniperChill (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

a set that has both theme and variety, on this matter, I have previously suggested that themed sets try to compensate for a decrease in one sort of variety by maximising others. The W&M set had five bios, slightly more than would be desirable, and three others are documents/speeches. That's a lot of topical overlap. I didn't mind the W&M set, but if there is a desire to find guidelines going forward, whether a set can go a long way towards WP:DYKVAR may help filter what sets might be too specific. CMD (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of topic variety was, sadly, partially the result of confusion on my part regarding how many hooks were required. I was under the impression that seven would be sufficient to get this set to run and was notified shortly before the run that I actually had to produce two more articles to get to nine. Unfortunately, biographies and documents are the easiest sorts of things for me to write articles on when crunched for time, so we got Orlando Jones and Carlo Bellini (I was considering an article on something called the Frenchman's Map, which will get an article soon but would have probably performed even more dramatically poorly than anything here because it's really just an especially important map). From a message on my talk page, I get the impression that some users would consider lower viewer counts especially crushing on a personal level. I'm not really feeling that way—I got the chance to bring people's attention to a topic that is disproportionately important despite its (until recently) thinner coverage here on the project. Again, I'm still uncertain how "promotional" could be the takeaway here. I certainly don't anyone giving money to the college right now (besides, perhaps, the library) and I don't think I've convinced anyone to consider applying just so they can go to the same place that Orlando Jones—uh, wait, no, the other one—learned to spell. As for evaluating it as an experiment, I like that perspective. It seems useful lessons were learned by the leading DYK team members who've commented and I know they'll provide stronger guidance regarding themed sets as a result. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either it was too niche or it lacked variety. I don't want to shun out niche topics for special occasion hooks, and I thought this would be a wholesome set for an anniversary, but we should rethink our approach by maintaining variety. I would still support it but I think it should be made more clearer and be done like, some months in advance so there's time to plan without editors getting confused and doing what happened here in a time crunch. HurricaneZeta^C 21:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So my question for everyone in this section that is opening on "too niche a topic". What objective measurable harm was done to Wp or to DYK? There was some concern about perception of paid editing that was presented by voices "in house" and possibly as a response to an external sites vitriol about DYK, yes, but that was all. There is nothing in DYK rule that say a minimum threshold number of "clicks" must be obtained for an article to be allowed in the DYK slots, and DYK:Interesting is a rule that originally was implemented to prevent overtly well duh obvious hooks (such as "...that the Sky is blue?), but is now being invoked as a gatekeeping device with no relation to that objective, and no consistent manner.--Kev min § 16:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kevmin, as brought up to you before: if you oppose the DYKINT rule and suggest we should do away with it, please feel free to start an RfC about phasing it out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have again avoided actually answering the question that I keep asking, specifically What objective measurable harm was done to Wp or to DYK? If you are willing to continue to use INT as a gatekeeping device under the pretense of "protecting the project and main page" I will continue to ask that hard data be provided to justify that rational.--Kev min § 01:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with the sentiment raised as I know it was not the intention, multiple editors criticized the set as giving the impression that we were promoting or advertising William & Mary College. Whether or not you agree with those criticisms is beside the point, the fact that they even happened showed that the set was not well-received. There were also criticisms that the hooks provided were boring, which only strengthened those complaints. Arguably, had the hooks been better written or presented, perhaps the set would not have been as controversial as it was. Contrast this with other recent special occasion sets such as the PNG and MLK sets, which had more variety and objectively better hooks.

Also Kevmin: given that you are vocal about your opposition to DYKINT and have stated it multiple times, why have you not started a discussion about it? It's easy to start an RfC about abolishing DYKINT, and given how unpopular and controversial that criterion is within some of the community, your proposal is likely to gain at least some support. There is no harm in starting a discussion unless you were never planning to start one to begin with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which metrics do you have in mind? The main statistic we have access to (page views) clearly shows strong disapproval, and I'm not sure what other kinds of metrics you would like to see, given that reputational damage is notoriously hard to quantify with hard data. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that it did harm, the problem is that it didn't do good (or enough good, rather, according to page views). wound theology ◈ 15:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

Right Here, Right Now (Giorgio Moroder song) (nom)

Article text reads "Moroder previously topped the chart in March 2000 with the Jam & Spoon mix of his 1978 instrumental, "The Chase". This shows that he had a charting single 15 years ago, but not that it was his most recent one. Pinging TarnishedPath, Damian Vo, and GDuwen. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, I'd suggest reinforcing it with this Billboard source.--GDuwenHoller! 18:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. If that can be made explicit in the article, with the reference, this should be good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the sentence per your suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diego García Miravete (nom)

I am involved in this due to reviewing after pulling. Another pair of eyes will be needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look.--Laun chba ller 17:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOG and SounderBruce: Bleacher Report's coming up yellow on WP:UPSD, what makes this reliable?--Laun chba ller 18:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a feature-length article by a James Beard Award-winning journalist, Robert Andrew Powell. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me.--Laun chba ller 19:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of a discussion regarding the website in question that I can take a look at? JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it mentioned at WP:RSP or WP:NPPSG but did see it highlighted, hence my question.--Laun chba ller 19:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this search, most posts take umbrage with the user-generated content. There doesn't seem to have been some sort of a definitive discussion on it, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Hopefully the author's credibility is enough to overcome issues that BR might have. There probably is a problem with SEO optimization too, both here and on other sites. In any case, the UPSD gadget certainly looks useful; I'll be adding that to the tool belt. Thanks to you both. JTtheOG (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer, do you still have concerns about this? If not, I'd like to move to queue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: My concern has been resolved, feel free to queue.--Laun chba ller 01:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Picture prep 4

Hi all, since I'm a new prepper I thought of asking here first: wouldn't it be better to move the picture at prep 4 to a later prep, since it's the same theme as prep 2 (a building)? Barbalalaika 🐌 20:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that similar picture hooks should be spaced out, but the better solution is to swap in a more appealing photo in Prep 2–the building photo is bland, but the photo for the magpie hook in that set is striking and unusual. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this possible even if the nominator didn't submit the article as a pictured one? Barbalalaika 🐌 20:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, probably not since the reviewer wouldn’t have commented on the photo’s eligibility. (Writing from phone so not easily able to click through to nom pages.) It is within preppers’ discretion to adjust photo placement within sets though, so you can place a better photo hook into that slot as needed to ensure balance and variety. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll crack on! :D Barbalalaika 🐌 20:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it were back-to-back, I'd agree. A space of a day isn't a big deal, though, imo. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, that'll help my decisions in the future. Since I agree with @Dclemens1971 that the pictured hook is still rather uninteresting, I'll swap it for this nomination which I double-checked and believe deserves a picture. But anyone is free to revert the change! Barbalalaika 🐌 21:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

Wixom Assembly Plant shooting (nom)

@Darth Stabro, CoryGlee, and M.Billoo2000: this may be a bit small-c conservative of me, but I'm a bit concerned about how this hook will be interpreted by readers. Even if reliably sourced, framing a mass shooting around the perpetrator's accusations against Ford/PACs/Clinton risks coming across as sensational and as giving undue prominence to his narrative - which, as the article notes, may have been impacted by delusions. Zzz plant (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzz plant: Hi. Well, I agree with you (even as the nominator) about the "sensational" side. I nominated a lot more DYKs after this one and I wouldn't phrase it this way because it now sounds to me similar to the one some weeks ago about the "... shot Donald Trump" DYK... Did y'all see that discussion? That said, Atkins was found sane and not delusional by the courts, but a psychological side cannot be discarded anyway. If the others pinged and whoever may join this discussion, I am willing to propose ALTs. CoryGlee 22:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something about him claiming to have erotomania would be reasonably interesting, I think. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In that case, I leave this first, simple option, and I'd like input from anyone in the hook too!

ALT – ... that a U.S. Army veteran claimed in court that he suffered from erotomania when he carried out a mass shooting at a Ford Motor Plant in Michigan? CoryGlee 22:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- I appreciate the flexibility/understanding and feel the erotomania angle is a better direction. My only remaining thought is that it may be worth clarifying a tad in the article whether Atkins himself directly claimed erotomania, or if it was more so an explanation offered by his attorney. Zzz plant (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right!

Sources do not mention him ever speaking. This was (it seemed to be) a last-resort defense strategy. Can any English native rephrase it accordingly, please? CoryGlee 23:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase ALT: ... that a U.S. Army veteran was claimed to be suffering from erotomania when he carried out a mass shooting at a Ford Motor Plant in Michigan? M. Billoo 05:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoryGlee, Black Kite, and Zzz plant: Any update on this? My concern is that I don't know if we can swap out a hook for one that's not an ALT (not originally in the nomination) while it's in prep. HurricaneZeta^C 16:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HurricaneZeta, I'm not into that information. As far as it is about me, I don't have objections to changing the hook. And, while not knowing the information at hand, a recent DYK hook about a woman "shooting Donald Trump" (blatant clickbait) was changed in vivo... I mean, with the clickbait hook already on the portal. CoryGlee 16:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright,

Done. HurricaneZeta^C 16:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should we do an Eid al-Fitr set this March?

We already have our regularly scheduled set for Christmas every year, and Christmas is ultimately a Christian holiday (even if it is celebrated by many non-Christians due to secularization). However, I don't think we've ever had a full set about Eid al-Fitr, one of the two main holidays in Islam (along with Eid al-Adha). In many Muslim countries, Eid al-Fitr is a far bigger celebration than Christmas. Even as a Roman Catholic myself, it feels weird that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet we have yet to do a set for it when we've done sets for other celebrations. I'm aware that such a set has been mooted in the past, but for whatever reason the idea has never gained traction.

This year, Eid al-Fitr will be around March 19 (the exact date depends on the country or location). Should we do an Islam-related set around that time? The above discussion regarding special sets says that we should be encouraging broader sets, not more narrowly minded ones, so I don't see it being difficult to have a whole set about Islam, Islam-related celebrations, or even facts from predominantly Muslim countries. If DYK could work together on a Martin Luther King Jr. Day set, or one editor can make an entire set about a single American school, I can't see why DYK can't run a set about the world's second-largest religion. If the reception to this is good, I can imagine us also doing another set for Eid al-Adha around May 27, and perhaps for either set or even both to become regular scheduled sets moving forward ala Christmas. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few ideas about potential articles... I could probably throw together something on Para Perintis Kemerdekaan for a more heavily Islamic themed hook, though unfortunately most of my Indonesian sources are no longer with me. (I also have plans to write Pak Kasur [id], but even though he was from a Muslim-majority country his output was very non-denominational.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No objection at all, but if you're going to propose sets, I would like to see you also contribute to the same set you propose. I think it's odd for people to propose a set, like a Philippines-related set, but not contribute to the same set. In other words, people who propose a set should have some skin in the game in helping to make the set happen. Simply proposing a random set isn't helpful, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 publeek (house • service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 02:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, while I'd love to participate myself, Islam and other related topics are outside my line of expertise, so it would be difficult for me to write such articles. However, perhaps if there are any Muslim anime personalities or something Islam-related that is also anime-related, perhaps I could chime in with a hook or two. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Are you familiar with any Japanese or anime people or media that have links to Islam? I would have suggested Fairouz Ai, but she has already run on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In 2019, which was more than five years ago.--Laun chba ller 10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, the only way she could run again at DYK is if the article is brought to GA status, which might be a tall order given the timeframe we have. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to the best of my knowledge at this time, no. I'll try to find one over the week. ミラP@Miraclepine 13:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've found one: Template:Did you know nominations/Kō Nakata. I'm busy at the moment, but I'm open to other hook options. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aima Baig seems to be Muslim and is a GA candidate, though this isn't in the article.--Laun chba ller 20:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed as long as there are articles to support it. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support one set in March or May, provided there is a sufficient number proposed. I do not support making it an annually scheduled set or scheduling a second Eid set this year until we can evaluate participation and response. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good proposal—would need volunteers, as mentioned. Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 03:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Idea is great. We need to find the relevant topics. Not necessarily about religious articles, but there can be some articles about sweet dishes as well which can be featured on Eid al-Fitr and about meat dishes on Eid al-Adha. Otherwise, we can make a set about the films and media which subject around Eids. M. Billoo 05:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something like either the IWD set or the MLK set where we are on the lookout for new article creations about Islamic countries and Islam, and see if they can fit. We could also see if any of our open or approved nominations fit too. To make things easier, the set probably does not have to be entirely Eid-focused, the hooks just have to focus on Islam or an Islamic country (like how the MLK and IWD sets are broad in topic). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, albeit this is well outside of my comfort zone. Looking at WT:ISLAM#Article alerts, I see two DYK nominations, two GA candidates, and about half a dozen AfC submissions. I see also that @EasternShah: has also posted on the WikiProject's talk page. In short, filling a set shouldn't be tricky.--Laun chba ller 10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the two DYK nominations do not seem appropriate. The first nomination is likely to be rejected on article quality and hook accuracy grounds, while the second nomination is about a Boko Haram leader and is probably not the best option to be featured. The two GA nominations have yet to be reviewed, so they are possibilities if they are reviewed soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two GA nominations was DYK in 2025, so that's a no go. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled together Para Perintis Kemerdekaan and nominated it with a request to hold for Eid. If we get anything more specifically about Eid, great, but I think the link between the film and Islam is strong enough to make it a viable choice. (On an unrelated note, Kompas increased its database rates from 35k rupiah to 99k rupiah per article... this may be my last Indonesian article citing archival resources). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing that several of the Walisongo have minimal articles... 500 characters, give or take. I can probably take one up to a C or B class. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While the intention is good, this would be an Eid al-Fitr set and not an Indonesia set, so ideally we'd want multiple Islam-related articles from across various countries and regions. If we ever decide to have an Indonesia set on August 17, that at least would be a possibility. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is my area of expertise. I'm not saying we'd have to run them all, but Indonesia is also the world's largest Muslim majority country, so two hooks would not be amiss. The only other topic that is coming to mind is about a fikh concept of spouses failing to do their duties, which would not be appropriate for Eid. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Potential inclusions

Splitting this off, so we can have an easier place to track. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Para Perintis Kemerdekaan (nom) - Indonesian film about Islam and revolution
Kō Nakata (nom) - Japanese Islamic scholar and light novel writer. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished reviewing both of these nominations. They should be good to once the hook issues are addressed. For other interested editors, be on the lookout for Islam-related new creations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 (12 February)

Black-rumped magpie (nom)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards, Kevmin, and Zzz plant: A few concerns about this:

Can't figure out how to read the source, which one means that it was classified as a species? Additionally, pinging @UtherSRG and Aa77zz: to see if the hook is factually correct per the previous talk page thread.
Does the article need the long quotations in Similar to many other corvids, the black-rumped magpie has a subdued, warbling song, "interspersed with high-pitched notes and even some mimicry." and Its typical call is a "raucous, explosive rapid chatter."? Second one may be fine, but I feel like the first one could be paraphrased, which is preferred compared to quotations.
There's a one line "Relationship with humans" section that, to me, doesn't provide enough context to justify its own section - think the header should be removed and the content moved to a different fitting location.

HurricaneZeta^C 04:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Avilist 2025 says

Taxa serica (polytypic, including anderssoni) and bottanensis (monotypic) are treated as species separate from Pica pica based on mitochondrial DNA divergence (Kryukov et al. 2017; Song et al. 2018), supported by differences in plumage and/or vocalizations. A more comprehensive genetic review incorporating genomic data, and investigation of possible contact zones, would be informative.

... so yes, seems that 2018 is the right year. IOC elevated it to full species in version 8.2, which was released June 2018, so that's stronger support for using that year. eBird also switched in that year, as did Clements. HBW and Birdlife (and hence IUCN) still call it a subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind HurricaneZeta that DYK is not a GA review, what issues are you seeing in the article that contravene DYK rules. I do agree that the first quote is possible to paraphrase, its not prohibited by WP:Quote and many GA and above have much more extensive quotes. Regarding the "Relationship with humans" section, thats an expected section for Taxon articles which if anything is done to it, it should be expanded further, and not rolled into a different section that is not of the same scope. IOC is the WP:Birds main guide for species placement so this article is at the right level, and as UtherSRG notes the source follows it. The source is saying that the human species concept of Pica serica and Pica bottanensis are best regarded as fully separate species and not subspecies of Pica pica based on the total differences in mitochondrial DNA between the groups. These differences are compounded and supported by unique behaviors and morphology in each group. Better understanding of the genus Pica and its species/subspecies is recommended by the authors to give a clearer understanding of the group interrelationships and boundaries.--Kev min § 15:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, but articles have to be presentable, so I was just noting those issues. They've been fixed (quote paraphrased and section renamed) and hook was clarified so I think it's fine. HurricaneZeta^C 15:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Servaea incana (nom)

@Sevenstxrsquid, Premeditated Chaos, and TarnishedPath: is "zigzag dance" a quotation from the source? If it isn't I don't think it needs to be in quotation marks. HurricaneZeta^C 14:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The action being described is a direct quote which is called a "zigzag dance" in the source, yes, on page 307. The quotes may be removed though, if you think it would flow better without them. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 22:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, that's fine since they are unique phrases. HurricaneZeta^C 23:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado

Hi! Is there anyway to reopen the DYK nomination for this page? The original one was failed and closed when the article was updated to 5x, and now the article is updated to GA status. Also, please refer to my previous query few months back. Also, can I request the help of anyone else in pointing out a better hook? Thank you! M. Billoo 08:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The old nomination should remain closed; however, a new nomination can be opened at Template:Did you know nominations/Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado (2nd nomination). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Did the bot just remove my nomination? How to nominate now? M. Billoo 14:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page has already been created and can be seen at Template:Did you know nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 (13 February)

Calvin Duncan (legal advocate) (nom)

@GRuban, MCE89, and Viriditas: Just to be careful, would this hook be SYNTH? It relies on two different sources, and neither one states both points (that the court that convicted him is the same one that he was elected clerk of). Is there a source that says both of these? HurricaneZeta^C 14:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's THE criminal court for New Orleans/Orleans Parish, which is clearly stated in multiple sources. It's not one physical building, it's an office, meaning the formal/logical organization in charge of the criminal cases in the city/parish of New Orleans, which is a good sized city/parish (so I'm guessing it has multiple physical buildings, but don't know). If we can't say that a subject A is the same A, we can't write any articles about A, because we can't be sure that they're talking about the same A. How do we know that the New York City that has The Bronx in it is the same New York City that Donald Trump grew up in? Do we need to find a source that says "Donald Trump grew up in the same New York City that has The Bronx in it, as opposed to all the other New York Cities out there"?

The sources I used: https://lailluminator.com/2025/11/15/duncan-clerk/ "Calvin Duncan, who was wrongfully convicted of murder 40 years ago and sentenced to life in prison, was elected clerk of Orleans Parish Criminal Court Saturday night" https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/13478 "Duncan's trial in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court began in January 1985."

Or are you wondering whether the "Orleans Parish Criminal Court" that he won the race for the same as "Orleans Parish Criminal District Court" that Duncan was convicted in? Yes, it is. Here is another source that uses the OPCDC phrasing for the election, and says Duncan is running for it: https://veritenews.org/2025/10/02/clerk-of-the-court-orleans-2025-election/ Ah, here is his campaign website that now says "we won" (it didn't when I was writing it!), and it says says CDC: https://calvinforclerk.com/about "WE DID IT! Calvin won his race by a landslide and will be New Orleans’ next Clerk of Criminal District Court."

Here's a source that specifically says this is the office that kept him from getting his own paperwork, which was one of the motivations for him running for the office: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/article/from-inmate-to-lawyer-calvin-duncan-jailhouse-lawyer/ "Duncan graduated from Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland last spring — at age 60 — and is now running for Clerk of Court in the same New Orleans district that once denied him access to his records." The first source again: "“I want to make this my legacy [to say] that I fought to make a system better, so that people don’t have to experience what I experienced,” Duncan said about the clerk’s office."

--GRuban (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZeta: Per the above, there is only one clerk of the Criminal District Court for the parish of Orleans.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation @GRuban, was just being careful since this was raised in the nom and another hook that I queued got pulled for similar concerns (though in that case it was implying an original conclusion, which is not so here). HurricaneZeta^C 21:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for caring about DYK. --GRuban (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition (nom)

@Phlsph7 and Generalissima: and Viriditas, where does it say the hook fact (that there are cognitions about cognitions) in the article? I wasn't able to find it. HurricaneZeta^C 14:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's in the paragraph starting with "Consciousness is closely related to metacognition, which encompasses any knowledge or cognitive process that deals with information about cognition." + the image caption "Metacognitive processes deal with information about other cognitive processes." Zzz plant (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in many places throughout the article as well: Metacognition involves knowledge about knowledge or mental processes that monitor and regulate other mental processes....Consciousness is closely related to metacognition, which encompasses any knowledge or cognitive process that deals with information about cognition. I also checked the cited sources, where it also appears. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article on metacognition is more direct: The term metacognition literally means 'above cognition', and is used to indicate cognition about cognition, or more informally, thinking about thinking. The cited source specifies that the theory of mind and metacognition are both concerned with the study of "cognition about cognition". Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm really bad at reading through technical stuff like this lol HurricaneZeta^C 20:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (14 February)

Populus Denver (nom)

@Pdubs.94, Pbritti, M.Billoo2000, and Darth Stabro: where does the source say became a subject of online and media discussion? It's what it was described as by the authors of those sources, and the Westword article says Denver residents have mixed reviews of the hotel, but that's vaguer than what's claimed in the hook. Additionally, has anyone checked for failed verification? That would be an issue if the article was LLM-generated. HurricaneZeta^C 16:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cursory check for failed verification. The three facts that I spot-checked came back as ok, with one of them slightly amended in my edits to the article. I recommend just nixing the "discussion" bit and going for a tighter hook like "that the facade of Denver's Populus hotel (pictured) has been compared to a 'cheese grater'?" That's clearly supported by the source and does away with some of the unnecessary length. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'll spot check a few more for fv. I think mainly #Sustainability has that LLM language of attributing coverage despite it not being needed. HurricaneZeta^C 21:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I found issues in 3/4 of the citations in that section.

Pulled, will expand on the nomination page. HurricaneZeta^C 02:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Better in Denim (nom)

@Phibeatrice, M.Billoo2000, and Barbalalaika: The source says that they said it wasn't related. Usually, it would be changed to attribute what they said, but I'm afraid that doing that might imply that we're saying that they're lying - this could be just my overthinking, so is this fine? HurricaneZeta^C 21:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading the source quote, attribution would also require some rephrasing to mention that Gap (and the other company) said it, not Katseye. HurricaneZeta^C 21:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no problem with the hook, but maybe I didn't fully understand the issue.

The source says: "Gap and Invisible Dynamics have said that the campaign and its artistic choices were not a response to American Eagle’s campaign."

The hook: "... that despite coincidental timing, Katseye's Gap ad was not intended as a response to Sydney Sweeney's controversial jeans commercial?"

In my opinion, "was not intended to" already implies that it was a statement from Gap's side. Barbalalaika 🐌 21:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mixed up Katseye and the other company Gap was working with (Invisible Dynamics). This can be rephrased, I agree. Maybe even switching the order suffices? Gap's Katseye ad? Barbalalaika 🐌 21:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that intent and what they say publicly was different (not that I doubt it), but the fact that it was shot before the AE ad strengthens that, so I'm leaning toward no changes now on that front. However "Gap ad" reads weirdly to me, maybe Gap's ad featuring Katseye? HurricaneZeta^C 21:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZeta: Agreeing with Gap's ad featuring Katseye. Pinging Phibeatrice as well. M. Billoo 12:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZeta Fine for me as well :) Barbalalaika 🐌 14:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done HurricaneZeta^C 14:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes needed at

Template:Did you know nominations/The Witcher: The Adventure Card Game. There were some concerns whether the hooks are interesting, ALT4 seems to have a 4:1 for being interesting (and is technically identical to hooks promoted in the past), but the nom is still stalled. (Also, I am curious if 1:4 veto on whether something is interesting is enough to prevent a hook from running?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about closing this several days ago, but I decided it was best to wait for things to settle down. ALT4 looks fine to me. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any issues with ALT4 either. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can approve ALT4, but the issue is that the article is still in need of a copyedit. If anyone here could help in copyediting the article, that would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was already copyedited by @Nihil novi _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the article yesterday and it is still in need of further copyedits, mainly for grammar and readability. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? I made a few minor fixes suggested by Grammarly, but I don't see any other problems. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've now copyedited the whole article, "The Witcher: The Adventure Card Game".

How does the term "gameplay" differ from "play"? Nihil novi (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihil novi From what I see in my research: gameplay is structured, rule-bound interaction within a specific system, while play is a broader, often more open-ended activity. Gameplay refers specifically to the mechanics, actions, and strategies a player employs within a video game; play is broader/more generic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5 (15 February)

Chama (album) (nom)

@Jax 0677, Hurstbergn, Pbritti, and Darth Stabro: ALT0 (the one in queue) isn't particularly interesting - how does swapping it out for ALT1 sound? If we stick to ALT0 though, returned to its roots can sound like promotional language. HurricaneZeta^C 14:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A swap to ALT1 sounds good. I am a bit unfamiliar with the last couple steps of DYK hook promotion, as I don't do it. I always figured that promoters/queue-filler had fairly substantial discretion on swapping in ALTs; for the sake of circumstances like this, should I mark anything in my reviews differently? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping for ALT1 is good with me. - Hurstbergn (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I guess I could swap it out myself pinging the involved editors, but I prefer getting their approval before doing it. HurricaneZeta^C 19:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Piruzyan (nom)

@BeanieFan11, Ominae, and Chipmunkdavis: This hook is phrased very weirdly, and it sounds like the "someone" in which someone asked for either asked for the book to be made or for a copy of the book to give (the correct interpretation isn't immediately noticeable). I can't think of any rephrasing ideas on my own. HurricaneZeta^C 15:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked for a copy to give to Castro; the book was already written. The best I came up with at the nom was "... that Armenian politician Aram Piruzyan wrote a cookbook which someone requested to give to Fidel Castro?". BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article only says that Piruzyan said someone suggested it. That is a weaker claim than the hook makes. It could be fixed by saying "... that Armenian politician Aram Piruzyan wrote a cookbook which he said someone asked for to give to Fidel Castro?" That's even more awkward, I'd suggest ... that the Armenian politician Aram Piruzyan said the USSR's head of state asked for copies of his cookbook to give to Fidel Castro? 1brianm7 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, if BeanieFan is ok with it I'll swap for that. HurricaneZeta^C 19:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: HurricaneZeta^C 23:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done HurricaneZeta^C 02:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Hope (nom)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Narutolovehinata5, Moondragon21, and Barbalalaika: I think this hook has WP:DYKMAJOR issues as raised in the nom - rephrasing to focus on her or switching to an ALT (ALT5 is the most interesting and imo that and ALT4 are the only usable ones for interestingness) would be needed. HurricaneZeta^C 16:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it is of interest to only fans of the soap. It is extremely rare for television shows to have an all black cast. The name of the show could be removed if needed, or it could move to ALT4. But I really doubt that this will only interest fans of the show. The fact that she debuted in a long running role in an episode which featured an all black cast is interesting. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZeta I agree with @DaniloDaysOfOurLives.

Regarding more focus on Dawn, what about...

… that Dawn Hope debuted on Hollyoaks in an episode featuring an entirely Black cast?

Barbalalaika 🐌 22:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I think removing the name of the show would suffice, then? HurricaneZeta^C 22:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly? Wouldn't removing the name of the show give the impression that Hollyoaks was also the first series Dawn Hope starred in... altogether (which isn't the case)? Barbalalaika 🐌 09:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree about the hook here. While it may be rare, the hook as written seems to be more about Hollyoaks than Dawn Hope. If anything, the hook would work if it was specifically about that episode, but probably not so much if it's about just Hope. I also don't think that a version that doesn't name the series works here either given it would make the hook too vague. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about...

… that Dawn Hope debuted on Hollyoaks along with an entirely Black cast?

Otherwise we'll really have to find another hook, even if for me, personally, that's the most interesting one. Barbalalaika 🐌 12:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZeta@Narutolovehinata5 courtesy ping Barbalalaika 🐌 11:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article is going to roll off the main page in 40 minutes. 1brianm7 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge now so it's too late, but personally I would have pulled the hook before it made it. I only didn't do so because I didn't realize it was airing today. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Christian to Crescent Trail Connector bridge (nom)

@ManOfTheArk, Dclemens1971, and JuniperChill: Nice work on this article, a few things: the claim The freight line was opened by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 1886 and is now owned and operated by CSX Transportation. will need a citation at the end of the line. In addition, a freight rail line known as the Philadelphia Subdivision hugs the east bank, leaving little room for a trail. makes it sound like there isn't a trail, and "Users" in Users have views of the river sounds like a weird choice of wording. Additionally, I removed "unique" from the design section as I didn't think it added much encyclopedically while in quotes. HurricaneZeta^C 17:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ManOfTheArk isn't onwiki every day so I'll tackle this in the interest of not having it pulled, @HurricaneZeta. Added a cite to the first issue, changed tense in the second case. "Users" is a the standard term for patrons of trails (because use of a trail can encompass riding, walking, running, etc. and thus a generic term is needed - see Trail for reference). Your edit is fine. Should be good to go. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! HurricaneZeta^C 03:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I am not online every day, so thank you @HurricaneZeta and @Dclemens1971 for the input and revisions to get this one over the line! ManOfTheArk (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inugami Korone (nom)

@1brianm7, Piotrus, and Chipmunkdavis: Is the hook fine wrt WP:DYKFICTION? VTubers can be considered "creative works" as their persona is often different from the person operating them and I don't think including the part about "fans" is enough for a real-world aspect. HurricaneZeta^C 19:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there is any meaningful difference between vtubers and other creatives. I’ve operated under and made the article under the logic that it is best thought of as a pseudonym. I think it’s fairly obvious if you replace her name with Banksy and ask if that is fine. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy doesn't have an entirely separate personality, etc. and the Takanashi Kiara hook was considered fictional too. HurricaneZeta^C 20:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The hook is a person says something and what it means. I don't think the position that, because WP:OR says they are putting up a false persona, it is fictional carries any water. The source is talking about the performer and says the performer says it and this is what it means.

I've said my piece on how the Takanashi Kiara hook was obviously not fictional and it was wrongly pulled (to which no one disagreed), I'd best not belabor it (and it is plainly not relevant here). 1brianm7 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I got a bit heated (or at least I feel like it), apologies. I still think the hook is fine, but here's a slight amendment if needed: that Inugami Korone's catchphrase "yubi yubi", which calls for her fans to cut off their fingers and give them to her, has been called bizarre? 1brianm7 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with the current hook outside of that, but sure. I was just thinking that since the VTuber isn't real (the performer is) it may not be in the real-world. HurricaneZeta^C 22:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A vtuber personality may be a creative work, but their output and fans are real-world. Consider a musician who uses a stage name. CMD (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you put it that way it makes sense, thanks. HurricaneZeta^C 02:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to think of a way to say that but I utterly failed and so didn't. It's a lot more clear than whatever I said above. Thank you. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I think it's fine. Consider my recent DYKed article about These aren't the droids you're looking for. Things said by fictional characters are notable. My hook said exactly this: * Did you know... that the Star Wars line "these aren't the droids you're looking for" became a popular Internet meme?. This is pretty much the same as the hook here: the hook states where this originated, quotes it and says it became popular (in my case) or here, explains what it is. I think if mine passed, this can pass as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: just for fun. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 22. We have a total of 435 nominations, of which 261 have been approved, a gap of 174 nominations that has increased in size by 24 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

~~December 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Hotmangaradja Pandjaitan~~
December 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Takanashi Kiara
January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/The Auckland Society of Arts
~~January 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Sterrett~~
~~January 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Andrea Margutti Trophy~~
January 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Dalmatius
January 9: Template:Did you know nominations/American Furniture Warehouse
~~January 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Wei Shujun~~
January 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Good Girl (Carrie Underwood song)
January 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Not a Bad Thing (2nd nomination)
January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Lan Yu (general)
January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Savannah Bond

Other nominations

January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/David E. Mitchell
January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Taiwan Love Story⁵
January 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Annie Stainer
January 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Borinsky
January 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Cow mortality
January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Steding
January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Mall (Abbott Elementary)
January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Hands off Greenland protests
~~January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Brunson~~
January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Men (magazine)
January 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Nun ruhen alle Wälder
January 18: Template:Did you know nominations/The Inklings (book)
January 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Alonso Ramírez (pirate)
January 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Abdul Rahman Salama
January 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Suder
~~January 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Old Spaghetti Factory Cafe~~
~~January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Sharifa Yazmeen~~
January 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Bayside Blue

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 (February 17)

Proto-Australian language (nom)

... that all the Indigenous languages of the Australian continent may have descended from a common ancestor spoken around 6,000 years ago?

@Ikuzaf, The Robot Parade, and TarnishedPath: The lead of this article seemingly contradicts the hook ("... proposed common ancestor of nearly all Australian Aboriginal languages."). And perhaps this is my ignorance, but I'm also not seeing the difference between the phrasings "Australian Aboriginal languages" and "Indigenous languages of the Australian continent". Can this be resolved either way? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69, previously the hook stated that they did decend. I promoted wording that states they may have decended. This is the same as starting that it is proposed. Regarding the phrasing of "Australian Aboriginal languages" and "Indigenous languages of the Australian continent", just different ways of saying the same thing. If you think that one wording reads better than an other I have no issue with change, but Ikuzaf might have more to add as the nominator. TarnishedPath^talk 23:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification; I was also referring to the "all" in the hook against the "nearly all" in the article. If those two phrasings refer to essentially the same group of languages, I would assume the hook is incorrect? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see what you mean. The languages which aren't proposed to have descended from the proto language are ones which aren't from the mainland.

Perhpas ... that all the Indigenous languages of the Australian mainland may have descended from a common ancestor spoken around 6,000 years ago? would work better. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with a slight copyedit. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if this is a mainstream argument or theory rather than one that doesn't have mainstream support yet? Saying "may" without context might give the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing it or at least that it's mainstream. If it's already well-accepted then the hook can run as is, but if not maybe we could change the hook to say "it has been proposed that..."? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the may with "it has been proposed that..." doesn't change the meaning much for me, so I'm easy.

Pinging @TechnoSquirrel69, @Ikuzaf and @The Robot Parade. TarnishedPath^talk 01:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The two linguists who published the book, Robert Mailhammer and Mark Harvey, are thoroughly within the mainstream of Australian linguistics. They received an Australian Research Council funding grant to write their book. And, as I hope I have shown in the body of the article, the idea that the languages of the mainland are descended from a common ancestor is a thoroughly mainstream one that goes back decades. I expect that there may be arguments about the specific details/validity of the reconstruction, but proto-Australian is not at all a fringe idea. Ikuzaf (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A solid-looking scholarly source in the article states in the introduction that "it is generally assumed that all Australian languages are ultimately related ..." (Koch & Nordlinger 2014, p. 4) when discussing previous scholarship in Aboriginal linguistics, which I looked at while queuing the set and thought was a good enough verification of the hook. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the current wording is adequate then. TarnishedPath^talk 06:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stefi Cohen (nom)

... that powerlifter Stefi Cohen went down a weight class to get to 25 world records?

@GRuban, David Eppstein, and TarnishedPath: This hook implies that Cohen achieved the 25 world records in the lower weight class when, if I'm reading things correctly, that appears to be her total across all weight classes. Can this be rephrased to resolve the ambiguity? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the article is that it is across all classes. I'll try and think of better wording over lunch. TarnishedPath^talk 00:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Her total is actually a bit over that in all 3 weight classes she ever lifted at, but I don't have a single source that says that. I did have a source that says that she lost weight to get to 25, so that's what I went with. . She did most (24, I think? I'm in a plane now will soon lose Internet) of her records at one weight class, then lost weight to get to 25, then gained to get to 26 or 7. -GRuban (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The source you quoted in the nomination states that she had already set some records before the weight-cutting, and then "This brings her number of all-time world records in strength sports up to 25." I would assume this means only part of those 25 were in the lower weight class. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about: ... that powerlifter Stefi Cohen went down a weight class in order to bring her total number of world records to 25? Does that sufficiently remove any ambigiuty? TarnishedPath^talk 00:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does help. To make it a little punchier, what do you think of "... that when Stefi Cohen achieved her 25th world record, she was competing down a weight class?" —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think TarnishedPath's wording is clearer here. Simply saying "she was competing down a weight class" is vague and the context isn't clear. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding "powerlifter" back to the hook fix that issue? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still no, if the point is that she went down a weight class to get more records. Just saying that she was competing at a lower weight class by itself does not make that clear. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; in that case, I've gone ahead and swapped in TarnishedPath's hook with a copyedit. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All those are fine by me.--GRuban (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how about "reach" instead of "get to"? "reach" usually implies you're already on the journey, so that could work. publeek (service • theleekycauldron • she/her) 00:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Brunson

Any chance of this being run during Black History Month? Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It currently is Black History Month, so as long as it's approved and runs before February is out, then it counts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd invite promoters who are specifically looking for BHM hooks to consider this hook about an interesting modernist building designed by a young architect who became the first Black mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. (The nomination is currently invisible on the approved page because of the WP:PEIS issue.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m interested, but do I have to manually promote due to peis or can I still use pshaw? Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can still use PSHAW.--Laun chba ller 08:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure ALT0 will get past ERRORS as the image doesn't depict the "oldest" church but a church from 1977. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas This kind of thing comes up in my content work (a "church" can be both a building and the congregation that occupies it) but I tweakd ALT0 to clarify the point. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I got it the first time around; I'm primarily concerned about all the people who don't get it. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62 I've reviewed this and suggested an alternative in the interest of getting this moving. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs a tick for me to promote. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas Working on getting to a hook for Brunson. Will ping you when one is approved. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas There's an approved hook for Brunson. There are what I think are better hooks in the nom, but they require independent approval. (I am not a huge fan of the banana ice cream angle favored by the nominator but I think it crosses the threshold of DYKINT.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I've never had banana ice cream, so I find that flavor interesting in part, but I don't find it interesting by itself. I think the hooks still need work. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This suddenly triggered a memory about a discussion about the formulation of banana flavors in the scientific literature that was entertained several years back. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 (16 February)

Al-Rashid Street (Gaza) (nom)

@Thepharoah17, Onceinawhile, and TarnishedPath: the described as the street that never sleeps comes from one news headline. Per WP:HEADLINE, these aren't reliable, and that extends to statements like this. If that phrase is removed, it is just a depressing contentious topic area hook and doesn't meet WP:DYKINT, and I doubt the current hook does either. Any ideas for a new hook? HurricaneZeta^C 15:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

…that before the Flour Massacre, 10,000 people used to gather on Al-Rashid Street every day? https://www.middleeasteye.net/features/gaza-street-never-sleeps Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I think we could do away with mentioning the massacre altogether. HurricaneZeta^C 21:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

…10,000 people used to gather on Al-Rashid Street every day? Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I like this. TarnishedPath^talk 23:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepharoah17 and TarnishedPath: could one of you check this variation:

... that in 2017, it was said that 10,000 people gathered on Al-Rashid Street every day?

For the article, the "city that never sleeps" part needs to be cut in the section header and its mention in the prose since it also falls into WP:HEADLINE. Also, it says that it's the public relations office that gave this number in the article, while the source says it's one person affiliated with them (the manager IIRC). HurricaneZeta^C 23:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I did the fixes. The new hook looks good. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

State of Singapore (Malaysia) (nom)

@ZKang123 and DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I pinged you in the edit summary where I changed "Singapore" to "State of Singapore", but encountered a bigger issue: the source was published in 1962 when the entity the page covers only existed from 1963 to 1965; thus, I don't think the source would be describing the same entity as the article. HurricaneZeta^C 17:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The plans for union went back perhaps to the Second World War, but publicly seriously from 1961. Thus the Singapore of 1962 was very much expected to be the Singapore of 1963, so to speak. That said, the source does state it in future tense, so perhaps the hook should be shifted to future tense? "... that the first Malaysian Prime Minister stated that Singapore would be the "New York" of the country? CMD (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done with some minor rephrasing and removing the quotes. HurricaneZeta^C 19:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

City Stadium (Green Bay) (nom)

TechnoSquirrel69 can you please return the hook to its original approved version. I have had something like 50+ hooks that have included "Green Bay Packers" in it and it is very common to use team names in hooks. Not sure why this would be any different, especially because NFL teams are now branching out even more internationally. Being generic with "a professional football team" if anything will lessen the interestingness of the hook and cause people to gloss over it more, whereas seeing that its a well-known NFL team worth billions of dollars will most definitely cause additional interest. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I see where you're coming from, but to me the team name is still specialist knowledge to American football fans. (Personally, I think the only reason I know the name is because of your FLs, ha!) However, I'd appreciate additional input from other editors on this. It would be helpful to get a perspective from a non-American. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the hook is not that it doesn't mention the Packers, but rather that the hook uses "football" without context. The hook is vague on where it takes place, and while context could assume the US, it's vague enough that it could theoretically be anywhere (meaning readers might assume "soccer" as the football in question). There are two solutions to this: either change "professional football team" to "professional American football team", or mention "Wisconsin" or even "Green Bay" somewhere in the hook (for example, "Green Bay, Wisconsin's City Stadium"). I'm personally more in favor with the former because I think the hook is interesting even if the team in question wasn't the Packers. Another possibility could be to say "an NFL team" and only making the Packers a piped link, since I imagine far more people internationally know the NFL than the Packers specifically. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"NFL team" was also a phrasing I was considering; I wondered if that might still be a little too America-centric, but you make a fair point on the term being more recognizable. I'd be fine switching to that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the wording to "an NFL team", linking it to the Packers. I hope this will be a suitable compromise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Belgrade City Assembly election (nom)

@Vacant0, JustARandomSquid, and TarnishedPath: This probably shouldn't be in the same set as my Annie Knight hook per WP:DYKVAR, but how does this meet WP:DYKBLP? The politician concerned lost his job as a result.--Laun chba ller 18:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sex tape thing? I don't have time to look into it atm, but as an avid... enjoyer of Serbian politics my guess is that this politician would be pleased that we're exposing the government's unethical tactics. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does switching to ALT0 ... that during the 2023 Belgrade City Assembly election campaign, former mayor Aleksandar Šapić presented a construction project with images taken from a Salt Lake City school? sound? That seems the most interesting to me without those BLP and DYKVAR considerations. HurricaneZeta^C 19:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue with this hook as an alternative. TarnishedPath^talk 23:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:DYKBLP, no living person is named in the hook. Regarding WP:DYKVAR it states that we shouldn't have more than two hooks of the same topic in a set (in this case sex). So I see no issue, although I have no objection to it being moved to another set. TarnishedPath^talk 23:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(You see, now we're going 2-a-day, I kind of want Annie Knight kicked back by a couple of days.) ALT0 seems fine from a BLP perspective, but I'll assess it properly in the morning.--Laun chba ller 23:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No issues with kicking back a couple of days, though if that happens I would highly recommend Knight stay in the image hook. Image hooks with good looking women always get a metric fucktonne of views. TarnishedPath^talk 02:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped this into Queue 3. Just noting that I considered the hook from a BLP perspective while queueing the set and didn't personally find anything wrong with it. If Wikipedia ran this person's sex tape on the Main Page, now, that would be a problem, but merely stating the fact that someone else did isn't. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped in ALT0.--Laun chba ller 11:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Knight, Drake Von (nom)

@TarnishedPath, Launchballer, Moondragon21, and Epicgenius: I want to ask about the current hook for Annie Knight and Drake Von. I fully understand Wikipedia is not censored and support DYK hooks covering a wide range of topics, including ones with adult themes. However, the "1,000 men in a day" framing strikes me as unusually explicit for MP - particularly in the image slot. This might just be me being overly cautious, but I would appreciate other perspectives (even if you disagree) to get an informal "temperature check" while this is in the queue. Thanks, Zzz plant (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to your thought, the hook reads as mildly promotional of their videos, which are, after all, commercial products. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects and those like them are known for this sort of stuff. I see no issue, particularly given that there is nothing graphic about the image itself. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There have been numerous discussions on this page and at ERRORS and they all found consensuses that running hardcore pornography hooks is fine. As for the hook being promotional, the hook is exactly as promotional as any other product we run.--Laun chba ller 23:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the hook is exactly as promotional as any other product we run

100%. DYK by it's very nature is promotional. We want to get eyes on pages. This is no more than any other. TarnishedPath^talk 02:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is some value to making hooks explicit, in that it gives an indication of the topic before a reader clicks through. CMD (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's worth adding 'the pornstars' before 'Annie Knight'?--Laun chba ller 11:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One article uses "sex worker", may be a more inclusive term. CMD (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I won't add it myself for obvious reasons, but would support anyone else doing so.--Laun chba ller 13:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It may be okay to not want sexually explicit images or content on the Main Page itself (I remember the Belle Delphine hook controversy from four years ago), but I don't think merely mentioning the concept of sex falls into that category. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's also an age factor. Once you hit 30, sex-related content becomes somewhat mundane or boring. My guess is that these kinds of hooks appeal to younger people, which is fine, there's a lot of content here that is age-related, this is no different. I mean let's face it, if I was 18, I don't think I would be all that interested in classical music hooks, hooks about medicare and retirement, or hooks about the unusual intricacies of governance and policy and procedures in Vanuatu. That's just the way of the world. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be useful to have some sort of clarification of what "Bonnie Blue's "1,000 men in a day" challenge" is instead of just assuming that the reader is aware of the nature of the stunt. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced that's an unreasonable assumption given that there was a period last year where Blue's article was getting more views than Beyonce's (according to The Economist), but one solution to that would be to replace 'challenge' with 'gangbang'?--Laun chba ller 21:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be gratuitous. We can describe without resorting to explicitly pornographic terminology. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of moving this back a few sets because it would have hit the main page in less than 13 hours. With the benefit of a night's kip, I think adding 'the sex workers' or possibly 'the porn stars' would solve the problem - it says 'this is probably sexual'.--Laun chba ller 11:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would linking Bonnie Blue suffice? TarnishedPath^talk 23:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd worry about that diverting views.--Laun chba ller 23:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One issue with the hook is that it's not particularly interesting. However, there's more of an problem - the hook suggests that Knight has announced an event, but the article suggests that she already did it last year (Inspired by both Blue's 1,000 men challenge and Lily Phillips's 101 men challenge, Knight had sex with 583 men in six hours on 18 May 2025). Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found in interesting. I wouldn't have promoted it otherwise. Re the refractory period, in the Pride.com interview he doesn't state that he plans on ejaculating for each and every of the 1,000. Male performers don't ejaculate in each and every scene, there are industry techniques at play rather than natural occurrences. TarnishedPath^talk 11:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that and edited my comment. The hook does still suggest that Knight has announced an event for the future, though, which is not backed up by her article. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also found it interesting and likely to be considered such by readers. Sex hooks always get high views. As for the point that wasn't removed when the above was reworded, one solution would be ... that Bonnie Blue's "1,000 men in a day" challenge inspired an event and a planned event by fellow sex workers Annie Knight (pictured) and Drake Von?--Laun chba ller 11:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 (18 February)

Abdullatif Al-Ghanim (nom)

@BeanieFan11, 4meter4, and TechnoSquirrel69: With the article's length I think some of the longer quotes used could be paraphrased - for example the one starting with "gave him the opportunity and "was one of Kuwait's most loyal men,. HurricaneZeta^C 18:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The quotes are not that long. I don't see the need.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Combined the quotes are about 3/4th the size of a paragraph in a section with three paragraphs, and there isn't much distinctive in them. Smaller phrases can be quoted. HurricaneZeta^C 18:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions as to how they should be paraphrased? I likewise don't see the need, but I could be open to it if a good paraphrase is proposed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see the need that's fine. I did remove some redundancy (saying "man of principles" twice in the second quote). HurricaneZeta^C 19:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Links in Queue 5

Queue 5 includes The Dance of Anitra, a sculpture by Edith Maryon: that The Dance of Anitra (pictured) is one of the few sculptures by Edith Maryon known to have survived in private ownership? Somewhere along the way, the link for Maryon got dropped—probably because the hook also originally linked to works of Edith Maryon, and there were adjustments to take that out. Could someone please add the link to Maryon back in? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I kept the link to the works page since she's not a broadly recognizable figure originally. Added the link to Edith Maryon now instead. HurricaneZeta^C 19:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rotating to 12 hour sets

@DYK admins: We currently have 231 approved nominations and all queues are full. I suggested a switch for the Belgrade election hook and can swap out the Al-Rashid hook if needed, so should we switch to 12 hours per WP:DYKROTATE? HurricaneZeta^C 20:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @HurricaneZeta and @TechnoSquirrel69 for filling up all the queues! Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

maybe unreviewed backlog mode too? WP:DYKUBM JuniperChill (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support given the evident backlog as new GAs are being added. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 HurricaneZeta^C 21:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support; if someone could hit the button just after midnight UTC today, that would be great. Thank you, HurricaneZeta, for your hard work queuing all these sets! I would only ask that you pace yourself and make sure you're not burning out. :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

a reminder to @DYK admins: to do this action in 45 mins time JuniperChill (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

let me also add that even WP:DYKN have reached WP:PEIS, which is the reason why I support turning on UBM at the same time as 12hr sets. JuniperChill (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll make the switch to 12-hour cycles when the bot updates in a few minutes.~~ Since it's less time-sensitive to activate unreviewed backlog mode, and likely more controversial, I think we should wait for a few more opinions on that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the page was template-protected, for some reason. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 hour set one is full protected HurricaneZeta^C 00:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have now switched it to 12 hour sets. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still pretty new to this process, but getting PEIS errors seems like a good reason to me to try to deal with the backlog. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving to WP:DYKUBM. TarnishedPath^talk 23:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be difficult, but my Air Serbia Flight 324 hook in Queue 1 is going to miss the special occasion date. I assume it's an easy fix, though, just send it to Queue 5. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JustARandomSquid: I swapped it into queue 4, which will hit the main page on 18 January either way.--Laun chba ller 10:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Cameron Fraser-Monroe

Both of the hooks proposed in the nomination are superlative hooks (ALT0 is a "first" hook, ALT1 is an "only" hook). The first hook is the stronger hook in terms of interest, but because of how exceptional the claim is, input is requested regarding sourcing and a search for counterexamples. Normally, it would have been suggested that new hooks be proposed, but with the article being relatively short (less than 1600 characters) and unable to be expanded further, the alternative is rejection. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 (20 February)

National Association of Priest Pilots (nom)

@Darth Stabro, Finnfrog99, and Zzz plant: Just to make sure, to spread the Gospel can be seen as promotional and unfamiliar to users who don't know that that's a synonym for Christianity. Any rephrasing ideas while maintaining the conciseness and meaning? HurricaneZeta^C 03:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

would "to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ" potentially be seen as promotional? Finnfrog99 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think just "to proselytize" could work? ScalarFactor (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proselytism is explicitly about conversion, where evangelization includes teaching within those who are already believers, which is much of the work the priest pilots were founded to do - flying to remove villages in Alaska to say Mass, etc. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the hook as promotional at all, but to address to concerns I've switched to Finnfrog99's wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Le Roseau d'Or

Just checking in here to see if my thinking on this is wrong. In regards to promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Le Roseau d'Or, it seems silly to me to run this book cover image as it provides almost no information to the reader. Does the promoter have the discretion to run this hook without the image in this kind of situation? Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't promote that image because it isn't of the subject. I'd run it as a regular hook.--Laun chba ller 20:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put in a request for a new hook as well. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas That image is WP:DYKDIVERT (tangentially related book cover). Even if it isn't we have a limited amount of image slots, so there's no need to promote the image along with it, and nominators understand that unless they make a special request for the image. HurricaneZeta^C 20:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Was I wrong to promote the astronomy image in prep 5? That can also be a bit tricky since such images are quite poor. However, I thought the image was unique and interesting in that context. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should pull that astro hook I put in the first slot that is now in queue 5. I forgot to check mobile and it looks terrible. It should be swapped with a better image hook. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do something about it tomorrow morning, but

Done, swapped with the top prep and will check if I can replace the image. I also had to pull another hook from that prep HurricaneZeta^C 04:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (21 February)

Cimpoi (nom)

@Iurii.s, Gerda Arendt, and Monkeysmashingkeyboards: Don't think this hook meets WP:DYKINT and/or WP:DYKMAJOR - it's hinging on the link and the reader knowing who Bartók is rather than a quality of the cimpoi. I also didn't find it particularly interesting as someone who doesn't know anything about this beforehand. HurricaneZeta^C 20:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you open to replacing it with variations of ALT0a or ALT0b, which explain it for the general reader? Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't believe that you have to know Bartók, - there's a link if you don't know him, and I think that he and his work - not only composing but being a pioneer in recording and collection Hungarian folk music - is good to know for everybody. Mentioning him gives the instrument a much broader context than just say something about a rather primitive instrument, - you have to mention bag-pipe somehow as the closest instrument people may know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ps: This is a new promising DYK nomitator, - could we perhaps be inviting and not begin with saying a suggestion is boring? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I love these hooks, and I do find them interesting, but I'm not certain they are directly supported in the article itself. Can you check? Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's helpful to the reader to pipe the main link as Romanian bagpipe, which prompts the reader for additional context. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not tonight, - it was a busy travel day. Your help in wording and perhaps linking is greatly appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to do so from now on. But the hook also has to make the cimpoi a major part of it, which it doesn't. I can imagine the boldlink being on Bartók instead. HurricaneZeta^C 22:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZetaC: Given that this hook requires additional work, I think it is best to pull it for now and replace it with another. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas The hook is supported in the article:

Béla Bartók documented this phenomenon in 1912–1913, noting numerous dance melodies in which the fluier in Bihor, as well as the fluier and the violin in Maramureș imitate cimpoi playing. He suggested that this reflected an earlier stage in which the cimpoi served as the primary dance instrument. This interest later influenced Bartók’s own compositions, such as the first movement of his Sonatina for solo piano (1915), titled Dudások (“Bagpipers”), and the Musette movement of Out of Doors (1926).

but the main issue is WP:DYKMAJOR. HurricaneZeta^C 22:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find the hook immensely interesting for many different reasons, but I admit it can be improved for the general reader. I will attempt to do so now. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingness is subjective, so take what I said above with a grain of salt if your opinion differs HurricaneZeta^C 23:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can something like this work for you:

... that the sound of the Romanian cimpoi (pictured), a type of pastoral bagpipe, was often mimicked by folk violins and shepherd's flutes, inspiring Béla Bartók to imitate it on the piano?

Several different ways we can do this. I don't agree with Gerda about the linking, so that's going to be a point of disagreement up front. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's better! HurricaneZeta^C 23:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While the new ALT is better, I'm not sure if the mention of Bartók is necessary here given that it makes it seem more like a hook about Bartók than the cimpoi. The wording could work if it was a double hook instead: is there still time to bring Bartók to DYK standards? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way at all, and yes, Bartók is necessary for the hook. And given his importance in music history and role in ethnomusicology, saying that it isn't necessary to mention Bartók is unusual in itself. And no, it isn't a hook about Bartók, it's a hook showing how the cimpoi significantly influenced Bartók. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, it does look better. Iurii.s (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni (album) (nom)

I would appreciate input from DYK volunteers about the sourcing being used in this nomination — the reviewer and I are discussing the degree to which problems relating to Indian-subcontinent journalism need to be addressed. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should have some kind of informal rule for these kinds of disputes, where the relevant WikiProject/noticeboard is notified, and we wait for their independent findings, and/or we recommend the nom take it to GAN where additional scrutiny will iron out the issues. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas A potential issue with taking it to a WikiProject or GAN as opposed to the reliable sources noticeboard is local consensus differing from the broader community consensus. WP:PRIMARY being the particular consensus at issue here. To be clear, I'm not set on a particular outcome here. Just bringing up a potential objection.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the counterarguments (I was around when they were first made long ago). The way I look at it is as a kind of non-binding peer review that we can take or leave. If you want to see what a local consensus actually looks like, have a look at the bottom of Talk:Freedom Caucus, where I've been told that normal policies and guidelines for editing no longer apply. Enjoy. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Very new article with coverage under development so not yet ready for GAN. Plus as per WP:DISCOGRAPHY, primary existence is enough. And this is not a BLP to have a strict policy implementation. If there is anything lacking the fact check, feel free to ask and I may provide the findings. Thank you! M. Billoo 15:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Billoo2000 important correction for you: Any statement about living persons is a BLP statement, whether the subject of the article or not. Thus, any primary sources must be from the subject of the claim themselves (which can include closely affiliated with them and acting on their behalf).--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

Ted Wheeler (Stranger Things) (nom)

@Cukie Gherkin, Olliefant, and Viriditas: I like the current hook, but i'm not sure it meets WP:DYKFICTION as it's entirely in-universe. Should we swap to ALT1? HurricaneZeta^C 15:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does since it's not about what he does in the show but about his role in general Olliefant (she/her) 16:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's about the critical commentary of his character, which is one step removed from a discussion about the character in-universe. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you came to this conclusion, but I believe it should be fine, because it's citing critical commentary identifying his uselessness as a running joke rather than a primary source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslava Pešíková

@Premeditated Chaos, BabbaQ, Gerda Arendt, and Yakikaki: I don't see where Juliet being traditional or Lady Macbeth appears in the article.--Laun chba ller 09:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "She interpreted negative characters including Runa in Radúz and Mahulena, Zarema in The Fountain of Bakhchisarai, Lady Copper Mountain in The Stone Flower, and Lady Macbeth in Macbeth." - Juliet (Shakespeare/Prokofiev) is probably one of the best-known characters of world culture, but we could drop the adjective if you have trouble with it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet is quite well known, but it would need to be in the article. How do you feel about "that ballerina Miroslava Pešíková (pictured) portrayed both Romeo & Juliet's Juliet and negative characters such as Lady Macbeth?"--Laun chba ller 09:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a bit hesitant about the hook. Isn't this basically a "ballerina does job" hook? DYK tends to frown on "person doing their job" hooks these days, and while I know highlighting the contrast helps, I'm not sure if that actually makes the hook anything else instead.

In any case, given that a different hook angle may be needed here entirely, along with us running two-sets-a-day for a while meaning less time to discuss, I've bumped this off to Prep 6 to give us more time to discuss. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Keyes

I'd like to submit a DTK nomination for the Israel Keyes article, as I've helped get it to GA status. There appears to be a previous nomination, therefore I'm not sure what to call the page to nominate it. Could someone assist me? Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktkvtsh It would be Template:Did you know nominations/Israel Keyes (2nd nomination). If you're using the DYK wizard and it fails, just copy the source code onto that page and publish. HurricaneZeta^C 20:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great! Thank you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKFICTION

@Hteiktinhein currently has three open nominations covering mythology:

DYKFICTION gives some leeway for mythology, but I want to ask what other's opinions are on how much leeway. TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things you learn about Buddhism is the enormous number of myths and legends, so many in fact, that I once heard it said that it's impossible for any living human Buddhist scholar to have read and learned them all (more so considering how much of the literature has been lost and destroyed over the last 2500 years). With that said, if these legends are sourced to academic experts and are given notability by scholars, then they can conceivably be used to form good hooks. However, the problem with these noms is that they are fairly common legends with no indication of notability or why we should take any interest. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian traditions are different and are often regarded as having semi-legendary status and mixed with real life facts. They should not be judged solely by Western criteria. Please respect our traditions. If semi-historical figures are to be considered fiction or myth, then the same standard would have to be applied to figures such as Jesus and the Virgin Mary as well. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the DYKFICTION-mythology question was a result of nominations about Western mythology (IIRC Greek or Roman mythology), not Asian mythology. The question isn't an East vs. West thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If I saw a hook along the lines of '... that Jesus turned water into wine?' I would consider that not to be DYKFICTION compliant even with the leeway afforded to mythology. TarnishedPath^talk 06:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deities and gods are subjects of worship and are almost always considered notable on Wikipedia. Why are subjects related to a deity being treated as DYKFICTION? Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable and being on the front page for DYK are different things. The issue with fiction is that what can be stated is only constrained by human imagination. Generally with hooks in DYK, the facts stated must be verifiable to reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 06:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the three hooks are not suitable for DYK, please indicate which ones here and I will replace them with verifiable historical facts one by one. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see any of them as suitable. Others may see things differently to me, which is why I brought it up for discussion. I would suggest that you need new hooks which are more centered on real world facts. E.g., for Princess Thonbanhla you could have something about her being honoured annually during Buddhist lent. TarnishedPath^talk 07:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about Pyapaung Taung Shinma, but Maung Me Khaung is an actual historical figure, and his footprint became a temple and is still housed there today. So that is not fiction. As for Princess Thonbanhla, the DYK hook is based on the death of a historical princess as recorded by historians. I do not see any issue of fiction here. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The world record for foot size is a smidgen over 40cm and you're telling us that a foot size that is somewhere beteen 44 and 53cm is fact? I'm sorry, but if you're going to make that claim I'll need reliable sources (not religious texts). TarnishedPath^talk 06:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

Ezekiel Hughes (nom)

@WikiOriginal-9, Viriditas, and Crisco 1492: I like this hook the most out of all the alts, but I don't think we can call someone who built one church and planned one road a church builder and a road designer. How is

... that Ezekiel Hughes, who built a church and designed (or planned) a road, was (also) a clockmaker, farmer, and justice of the peace?

HurricaneZeta^C 01:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd rather use that phrasing, I'd agree with it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is having a US-related set for July 4, 2026 a good idea or not?

It is obviously probably way too early to discuss this, but this is more of asking if there is community interest for this, or at least if it would not be a controversial proposal. July 4, 2026 is the US Semiquincentennial, an anniversary that is being promoted by various organizations and the US government. The 250th anniversary of anything is also widely seen as an important milestone.

On the one hand, we have done something similar before with the Canada Day set several years ago, doing an all-Canada set. There was also last year's Papua New Guinea set, which was well-received. On the other hand, this is a US-focused set we are talking about, and DYK's (and really Wikipedia's) focus on the US has been controversial in the past.

This discussion is not about discussing what should be in a July 4 US set, what themes to focus on, or what articles to run. This is also not a formal proposal for such a set. This is merely asking the community if we should even run such a set in the first place. Given the recent controversy with the William & Mary College set, it would good to first discuss first if the community even thinks if it is a good idea, or there should be no such set at all. In addition, it might also be a good idea to start a parallel discussion about this at the Village Pump so that at least non-DYK regulars can chime in and hopefully can help prevent another W&M case. At least if we have this discussion early, we can have an idea on what the temperature and interest is for the idea.

Discussion

Yes

I don't see why not, though if the US-centrism is a problem we should try to make up for it by doing one or two non-US/Western sets. The US and even the narrower concepts of American independence/patriotism are way broader than W&M. HurricaneZeta^C 01:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we were ever going to do anything US centric, 4th of July would be it. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LLM style prose vs. hallucinations at DYK

Template:Did you know nominations/National bank veto has landed at the AI Cleanup Noticeboard in this thread. Given the current state of the article (and the fact that a lot of work has now been created for others to review each and every claim and source within the article or move to draftify or delete it): Can we just go ahead and reject the DYK nomination at this point? Notifying article reviewer @Cbl62.

Template:Did you know nominations/The Inklings (book) by long-standing DYK contributor @Piotrus: The article The Inklings (book) contains a Reviews section that reads like LLM-generated summaries of three book reviews. Is this acceptable or would others agree that maybe that section is in need of a rewrite? Even if there isn't a specific DYK guideline for this, it feels like it falls under the "other subjective issues" bucket. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've rejected the national bank veto nomination, due to the presence of a orange maintenance tag on the article. TarnishedPath^talk 07:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what's wrong with the book summaries in my article; I've been writing book articles with reviews summarized like this for years ("like this", to clarify, means a reception section summarizing reviews, usually one per paragraph unless they are capsule reviews, and yes, they will have roughly similar structure), and they've been regularly DYKed. Some examples of my past DYKs with identical structure (I don't think my style has changed much, although I do experiment with different spellchecking tools like Grammarly): September 2020, April 2021, October 2022, May 2023, August 2023, etc. This style, if you want to call it that, has also been accepted for my relevant GAs (and their DYKs), ex. this is from last year: Małe zielone ludziki, or The Ugly Black Bird from 2024 (I can find more examples, but I hope that's enough). On a side note: food-for-thought, an interesting article about why some non-native speakers "sound like ChatGPT". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]