Pleasedo not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them toWikipedia: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 thequeues here, please include alink to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status
There is currently1 filledqueue. Assistance in moving preps is requested.
I am seeing some recent backlash against "first hooks" leading toWP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP at review. One recent example isTemplate:Did you know nominations/Jocelyn Borgella where it was suggested byNarutolovehinata5 that a first hook shouldn't be used even when there were tons of reliable sources verifying the hook fact. This seemed entirely inappropriate given the evidence. While I don't doubt that we have had issues with some assertions of "first achievements" in past hook proposals (a minority of them in my estimate), we could also find many examples of first achievements highlighted at DYK which were successful. I think we need to be careful here not to take a personal bias against "first achievement" hooks into review, and look at each case impartially on its own. Some first achievements are extremely well documented and supported by multiple reliable sources (ie nobody could argue with ...did you know thatGeorge Washington was the first president of the United States of America?). Others don't have that type of evidentiary support. I would suggest that we followWP:EXCEPTIONAL and require hooks of this type be supported by multiple sources. This would seem a reasonable and policy based way to ensure these types of hooks won't end up atWP:ERRORS. This is already suggested atWP:DYKCITE but we could state there more explicitly that "first achievement" claims must have multiple reliable sources supporting the claim. That said, I don't think we should be dissuading nominators from actively proposing these hooks because they often do make great hooks when there is evidence backing up the claim. Nor should we be requiring other kinds of hook proposals when they aren't needed. Best.4meter4 (talk)14:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer Good point. The guidelines talk around these ideas without outright highlighting what nominating/reviewing editors should be doing. I think we could outright have a sentence on hooks with "extraordinary claims", such as first achievement claims, needing multiple pieces of evidence. This would let nominating editors know they need to provide multiple sources supporting the hook claim when first proposing the hook fact in the template. That's why I am suggesting a more explicitly stated guideline for this type of hook as this appears to be a repeating point of contention. Best.4meter4 (talk)15:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to try to make sure our hooks are not just supported by reliable sources, but actually true. "First" statements often lack some important context even in high quality reliable sources. For a made up example, I am sure you can find hundreds of sources that say "Margaret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister" without further qualification even if that is wrong (compare Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir for earlier examples): she was the first female Prime Ministerof the United Kingdom. The same thing happens far more often with less high profile "firsts"; very often someone is the first personin the United States to achieve X, not the first person worldwide.
The answer in my view is to find sources that are not investigating the person named as "first" in the hook, but focusing on the whatever they were first in. Instead of using a biography of George Washington to show that he was the first POTUS, use a source listing all of them, which makes it clear what the context is in which he was the first.
We need to try to make sure our hooks are not just supported by reliable sources, but actually true. Meh, I'm of the opinion thatWikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the core guiding light of wikipedia editing because ofWP:No original research being a foundational policy and our rules around editing without editorial review. We report what is in RS, and if multiple pieces of RS are saying something we can say it. It shouldn't get more complicated than that in most cases because those are our guidelines. Going at it from the angle of truth not verifiability (which isWP:OR) is frankly not workable without an editorial board which doesn't exist on wikipedia. That said, where there are contradictions in reliable materials or multiple competing claims, or other good evidence based reasons to doubt truthfulness I am not advocating that we ignore those. I just don't think that we must have sources directly studying a specific issue to support a claim. A biography of George Washington stating he was the first president of the United States is a suitable source for that claim, even if it doesn't contain a list of every United States president.4meter4 (talk)16:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the issue of local papers making "first" claims is a question of verifiability vs. truth; it's a question of subject-matter reliability, like in medicine. We give a presumption to institutions with editorial staff and fact-checking that the information they produce is reliable, but that presumption can be rebutted if they consistently fail to catch mistakes. TheNew York Post has an editorial board, rag that it is, and so do most local papers. Local papers do fine for a lot of things, but they just do not have the institutional ability or incentive to debunk a broad 'first' claim about a hometown hero, and so they screw this particular thing up. A lot. So, the presumption that local papers are reliable does not apply to 'first' claims, the same way it doesn't for biomedical claims.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)17:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Main Page isn't an encyclopaedia article, it is more like a magazine. We (the DYK community) are the editorial board of one section of that magazine. The least we can do is try to fact check the claims that we are presenting to thousands and thousands of readers. —Kusma (talk)17:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:Could be. I think again that this emphasizes the need for multiple sources that are clearly independent from one another which would align with the language at verifiability. If the concern is only coverage in a single local paper; requiring multiple sources (ie different publications not in the same newspaper/publication by different named authors) goes a long way in solving the problem. I get it that some claims get repeated, but we aren't here toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think we would need some hard concrete evidence proving its not true or likely not true once multiple RS has verified its true. That's how wikipedia is set up, and we shouldn't divert from that. Some of the issues I see here are editors relying on speculative claims that the reporter and its paper didn't have due diligence. If that isn't based on anything tangible I don't think we should accept it as reality.4meter4 (talk)17:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I'm not against fact checking. If there is hard material evidence proving a claim isn't true or likely not true we shouldn't run it. The problem I see is that editors are questioning first achievement claims without any evidence suggesting that the claim isn't true. That isn't fact checking, but speculative discourse.4meter4 (talk)17:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As leeky says above, the issue is subject-matter reliability. Newspapers are good sources for the fact that something happened in some place a given day, but not necessary for the more extraordinary claim that the same thing didnot happen on any of the previous days in history in any other place on Earth. But that is what a "first" claim is, so we need a source that is reliable on that subject matter. —Kusma (talk)18:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is where multiple sources by different authors comes into play both in terms of improving the chances of reliability, and in terms of establishing a mainstream POV. When a fact gets repeated in multiple places by different authors it becomes a mainstream view which is addressed atWP:EXCEPTIONAL. So again, the best policy based way is to approach this is to require extraordinary claims to be verified to multiple sources.4meter4 (talk)18:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source reliability can be subjective in these cases. I would say it depends on the publication, and the author, and the claim being made. And that is something that we really can’t address any differently than what is currently in the guideline as it is very context dependent. Where we can improve in the language at DYKCRIT is strengthening our sourcing requirements for exceptional claims. I would think everyone participating here could agree on mandating the need for multiple RS on these types of hooks would be an improvement.4meter4 (talk)18:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly fact checking. You say something. I hear it and think "but is it really?" and go looking for the facts. Not just what your source says, but what the reality actually is.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)18:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was previously a defender of "first" hooks on DYK, even going as far as to oppose proposals on a blanket ban, but experience has shown that they have proven to be more trouble than they're worth. Even seemingly airtight "first" hooks, such as the recent "first Bermudian MLB player" (which none other than the MLB itself said was the case!), turned out to be inaccurate. We can probably still allow "first" hooks in certain circumstances, but given our issues with them, I'd now only support that if them being a "first" is the only interesting thing we can say about them and there are no other options.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)20:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems overly prescriptive in my opinion, and I think exaggerates the extent of the problems we’ve encountered at DYK overall.4meter4 (talk)20:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"First" hooks have regularly been reported at ERRORS and other venues like here, it's a recurring issue. If "first" hooks (or really superlative hooks in general) weren't so consistently problematic, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, nor would there have been proposals to ban them altogether.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)20:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Failed proposals (and rightly so). I noticed you overturned the hook review without even bothering to engage with the sources… not exactly giving me confidence in fair and impartial reviewing.4meter4 (talk)20:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When there is growing sentiment (if not consensus) against "first" hooks, and you were going against that in approving the hook, it was probably for the best to hold that approval in the meantime. Yes, the hook seems airtight, but we know from experience that even airtight hooks are not necessarily perfect, and it seems unwise to go with a hook format that consensus is currently leaning against.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)20:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where is the consensus? nobody has suggested a ban on these type of hooks accept you. no one has made a formal proposal. You are making an opinion up that nobody in this thread has even proposed?4meter4 (talk)20:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "consensus" was the wrong word, but it is true that in recent times, there has been rising sentiment against "first" hooks, something that you acknowledged in your opening statement. At the very least, "first" hooks are controversial, and other editors have expressed their reservations against them.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)20:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes a growing sentiment among a minority of DYK contributors. I don’t think this group is representative of the DYK community or Wikipedia editors at large. If a formal RFC were done I am pretty sure the community would lean hard on following written guidelines outside of DYK on multiple RS which is exactly what I am calling for. I don’t think a topic ban would be supported at all because it goes against the spirit of our content inclusion policies and policies prohibiting censorship. I’m raising this point precisely because this tiny group is pushing an agenda not compliant with wider guidelines. That is a problem.4meter4 (talk)20:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that it also depends on the kind of "first" being discussed here. There are "first" hooks that are easy to prove: it's easy to prove that George Washington was the first President of the US: just pull up a list of people who have been elected to the position and see who came first. Even then, his claim as the "first" US president, depending on how you define the position,isn't airtight either. On the other hand, "first Haitian NFL player" is more difficult to prove and also vague. Does it mean the first NFL player to come from Haiti, or the first NFL player of Haitian heritage? The first may be easier to prove but is not necessarily straightforward (as seen in the Bermudian MLB player case), the latter opens the door to more possible counterexamples. This is what I mean that "first" hooks are often more trouble than they're worth: proving that they actually are the "first" can be difficult, and even seemingly airtight cases could turn out to be false if a counterexample is found.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)20:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s a rather fruitless exercise looking at individual cases. The truth is one could present many cases of easy to prove firsts, and then other cases where they are difficult to prove. We could show DYK hooks of this type which had issues and other that sailed through without a problem. Hook verifiability issues crop up in all contexts. Not just this one. Occasionally errors happen. It’s not the end of the world as long as we make good faith efforts to prevent it. I don’t think this should be treated any differently than other contexts other than an increase in source verification standards because that’s already in our wider policies outside DYK.4meter4 (talk)20:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous counter examples of non-problematic articles could also be produced. It's not helpful cherrypicking articles because each example is unique to itself. The ratio of error in these kinds of hooks is relatively small.4meter4 (talk)16:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think multiple reliable sources are necessary to confirm a "first", but I think probably at least onespecialist source should be required. Newspapers, for example, are notoriously unreliable when it comes to the more obscure firsts (they are probably okay for well-documented topics like sports statistics). If you have a specialist source, or a specialist in the field, confirming a first, that should probably be sufficient.
Other than that, I have argued that both nominators and reviewers should be required to try anddisprove a "first" claim by searching for other possible candidates for the "first". If this were a requirement, it would probably radically reduce the number of erroneous "firsts" getting to or close to the main page, because many of them can be disproven with a quick online search.Gatoclass (talk)09:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were one minor newspaper making in passing a questionable 'first' claim, then I could agree it may be valid to reject. However, in Borgella's case, we over a dozen prominent newspapers discussing the fact across a span of three decades, and several of the newspapers featured storiesspecifically on him being the first. Not to mention the book about him is titledFirst Football Player of Haitian Descent Drafted In The NFL. I've also thoroughly searched for any other candidates for "first Haitian NFL player" and couldn't find any valid challengers.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's a book about the guy, that could be considered an expert source, could it not?
Otherwise, it sounds like the sourcing is strong enough regardless. Besides, newspapers tend to be pretty good on sporting firsts because they have dedicated sports writers. On random topics, not so much.Gatoclass (talk)10:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "first Haitian" is still vague enough that it would still be a good idea to clarify it in the article. I'm not sure if the sources support it, but changing it to "ethnic Haitian" might work.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we need some kind of guidelines regarding "first" hooks in general. Experience has shown that such claims are regularly challenged (just look at the recent "first Lithuanian bank" nomination), but there are rare cases where the "first" claim is airtight. It does not seem like the status quo is working, but it isn't clear what direction we should go in. A blanket ban might be the most effective, but it might be unpopular among nominators.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I think we should probably limit them to cases where you can pretty much explicitly prove it's the first, for example the first in a finite list of things where the list itself is sourced and there's no room for doubt about the claim. The first X in theList of FIFA World Cup finals might be an example of that because the finals themselves are clearly delineated and the stats for each one known. Anything looser though, including supposed subject-matter-expert sources, seems to be far too prone to error and I'd support a motion to prohibit those ones. (I was the Queue checker who approved the Bermudian MLB fact, and I did check unsuccessfully for counter examples myself, which just shows however exhaustive you try to be it's still unreliable). — Amakuru (talk)12:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to offer an erroneous hook as an example of how easy it is to get these wrong:
... thatEarl Lloyd was the first African American to play for an NBA team?
Wikipedia article
"Earl Francis Lloyd (April 3, 1928 – February 26, 2015) was an American professional basketball player and coach. He was the first African American player to play a game in the National Basketball Association (NBA).[2][3][4][5][6]"
Sources
"NBA Pioneers: League celebrates 75th anniversary of first Black players".NBA. Retrieved2025-10-06.Lloyd technically was the NBA's first Black player, his Capitols opening the 1950-51 season at Rochester on Halloween, one day before Cooper's Celtics played at Fort Wayne and four days before New York tipped off vs. Tri-Cities.
"Earl Lloyd".Britannica. Retrieved2025-10-06.first African American to play in the National Basketball Association (NBA).
"How Earl Lloyd became the first black NBA player".NBC News. October 31, 2016. Retrieved2025-10-06.A few months later, Earl Lloyd, who was just 22 at the time, crashed the boards of NBA integration on the night of October 31, 1950 when the Washington Capitols faced the Rochester Royals - making Lloyd, a Washington Capitol, the first black player to compete in an NBA game.
I think that most editors would find the hook solid, but further research would show thatAfrican Americans played for the NBL teams that currently exist as theAtlanta Hawks andSacramento Kings post-merger. TheWashington Post has criticized the NBA's official narrative as ignoring "important progress toward racially integrating the hardwood".Black Fives who cover the "African American basketball teams that played prior to the racial integration of professional leagues" specifically call out the sources above and call us out for leaning on them, 'What makes this worse is that supposedly bona fide journalists, writers, columnists, and hosts justify getting it wrong with, “that’s what the league says.” Or worse, “it’s on Wikipedia.”'. Regardless of how this discussion shakes out, I personally find an effective way to test superlative hooks to check for something that would disprove them. Does another source somewhere say that something else was earlier, faster, more expensive, etc?Rjjiii (talk)14:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion hasended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should DYK prohibit or restrict superlative hooks, such as those that revolve around a "first X" hook fact?
Option 1 - Ban all superlative hooks
Option 2 - Restrict superlative hooks to certain "airtight" cases, where established lists of subject members exist (for example, list of all US presidents)
Option 3 - Only allow superlative hooks to be approved on a case-by-case basis after a WT:DYK discussion
Option 4 - Status quo (bringing superlative hooks to WT:DYK is optional but encouraged, not mandatory, hooks do not need a WT:DYK discussion to be approved by a reviewer)
I think bothOption 2 andOption 3 are workable together. I.e.,Restrict superlative hooks to certain "airtight" cases, where established lists of subject members exist (for example, list of all US presidents); or on a case by case basis after a WT:DYK discussion.TarnishedPathtalk14:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 is clearly overkill. Option 2 doesn't work because we would never be able to create a comprehensive list of allowable topics. I sort of thought Option 3was the status quo, but I'm not entirely happy with that either because it's an overly bureaucratic solution.RoySmith(talk)14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current status quo is that reviewers are allowed to approve superlative hooks, WT:DYK discussions are optional, and oftentimes the claim is only scrutinized after promotion. Option 3 would make it that superlative hooks cannot be approved by a reviewer without a prior WT:DYK discussion.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a very badly formed RFC. What's a "superlative hook" for example? I don't think any of the proposals are workable because the concept itself of what is being targeted is not clear.4meter4 (talk)14:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Superlative is astandard term in grammar. In English, a hint is that a word ends in "st": first, biggest, smallest, oldest, fastest, largest, best, most (whatever), etc. Superlative hooks are hooks which are based on superlative comparisons, most often stating that somebody was the first person to do something. For our purposes, what makes these problematic is that the discovery of a single counter-example is sufficient to show that the hook is incorrect.RoySmith(talk)15:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Superlative can also mean possessing a quality of excellence (in which case we would be banning high quality hooks), or is sometimes used to criticize a point as exaggeration (which would already be banned). Somehow I missed this word as a grammatical category identifying words of comparison.4meter4 (talk)15:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 4; but open to other ideas if they come up.Oppose options 1, 2, and 3. Option 1 is excessive as there are many superlative hooks which can be verified reliably. Option 2 is not workable per the reasoning outlined by RoySmith. Option 3 is not necessary as we should trust hook reviewers and promoters to use good judgement in reviewing hooks case by case as a matter of good and ethical policy writing (I don't like codifying a lack of faith in reviewing editors into policy). Any solution put forward here should be targeted at helping individual reviewers and nominators; not further burdening/complicating the review process by bringing in another layer of review by requiring a second discussion on this page. This is why I suggested a path not in these proposals: tightening scrutiny in theWP:DYKCRIT language itself. (ie increased sourcing rigor). As mentioned elsewhere but not in the proposals, maybe asking reviewers and nominators to actively search for other possible examples to disprove the hook would be a reasonable DYKCRIT step to add in the review guideline for hooks with superlatives. Undoubtedly that criteria would slow down reviews of those hooks and would only attract a certain kind of reviewer willing to go the extra mile. Best.4meter4 (talk)15:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/3, to formalise what has developed to be current practice. Superlative hooks have proven tricky in their verificability, and they further veer towards the tabloidy style that DYK is sometimes criticised for. If a nominator wants to come out with a very strong case for a particular superlative because it has some special quality and there is nothing else hooky about the topic, that is possible under 2/3. Options such as tightening scrutiny or otherwise expecting reviewers to do more put the burden where it should not be, the heavy lifting needs to come from the nominator-side (by explaining option 2 on the nompage or obtaining consensus here per option 3).CMD (talk)15:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4, the other three are all instruction creep.4meter4 covered the level of sourcing and other needs that should be happening in their opening post above.--Kevmin§15:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go forOption 2/3. It is best if any potential problems are caught early. In the current practice, it happens too often that the queuer is the first to notice that there is a "first" issue, leading to discussions under time pressure and pulled hooks. More "instruction creep" can actually save paperwork here. —Kusma (talk)16:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the first is as absolutely air tight as "first man on the moon", we should probably just avoid such hooks. Really, if a "first" is all you can come up with, then don't nominate it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)17:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be an option 1/2 then? People are definitely going to push the envelope if all we say is "we should avoid these hooks", not "these hooks arenot allowed except under these specific circumstances". –Epicgenius (talk)13:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much just option 1. Too many firsts (and other superlatives) are just too vague or too qualified to be interesting. The "first Slovenian restaurant with three stars" thing comes to mind.User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)12:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 (status quo) first hooks are interesting enough, and are required to be sourced anyway. For example,DYK thatBeaulieu Park is the first station on theGreat Eastern Main Line in over 100 years. I live in the UK but I you should get a bunch of responses that's true if you Google it elsewhere (even from NZ) as well as looking at the sources on the linked article. The station is opening this month. I wouldn't want a newcomer would say that's interesting, only to then be greeted with a notice saying that the hook isn't approved due to it being a superlative hook.WP:DYKG is almost 4000 words long, probably longer than the formersupplementary guidelines.JuniperChill (talk)17:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4, hooks are supposed to be interesting for a wider audience, and "X is the first of its category" is the quintessential type of interesting stuff about a topic that people may not have heard about before. Of course, we need to have confirmation in reliable sources that X is indeed the first...just like with any other hook.Cambalachero (talk)18:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this even being asked? Is it justJocelyn Borgella? That nomination is currently doing exactly what should happen: People asked for clarification if Haitian ethnicity or nationality was intended and people paused promotion until whichever it is gets more authoritatively double checked.
Or has there been a recentspate of badly reviewed articles? That would be the problem to fix, not specially excluding a common and interesting category of hooks. Actually start removing people's QPQ credits if they're just pretending to have verified that facts they're supposedly reviewing. — LlywelynII04:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. I understand the concern with "superlative" (or extraordinary, one could say) hooks, but I really don't think there's anything wrong with nominating a superlative hook on something with an "airtight case". I also respectfully disagree with Roysmith's interpretation. We don't have to create a bureaucratic list of "every single acceptable topic for 'superlative' hooks". We can have a general list for a few topics, like modern metro systems, but we should encourage editors to useWP:COMMONSENSE. For example, forIstana Park, I wouldn't approve "it was the first park in Downtown Singapore to have palm trees planted on purpose" since the history of parks in Singapore is not airtight. However, say for exampleToa Payoh MRT station, I wouldn't mind approving that "it was the first MRT station to finish construction" or something, since there were only like, what, less than 12 stations built at the time, and in my eyes it's pretty airtight since MRT stations (or possibly most modern metro systems) are a well defined topic. Obviously, it'll be the nominator's responsibility to provide strong evidence so that it won't end up atWP:ERRORS, but if they can, and the evidence and justification are strong, then I don't see the harm in approving it. Option 3 isn't a bad idea, but DYK already has a massive backlog, and examining articles would only further increase the backlog.Icepinner10:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4, personally. Option 3 is what essentially ends up happening for many hooks, but like Roy said, it's rather bureaucratic; a fair number of superlative hooks are super-specific and unlikely to elicit much debate. As for options 1 and 2, these seem like overkill, and option 2 especially seems like it would create more problems than it solves (e.g. there'd be arguments on what would qualify as "airtight"). –Epicgenius (talk)13:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Hooks are interesting and can be and are supposed to be reliably source. I agree with others above that option 1 and 2 is overkill and the third just seems to be unnecessary Bureaucracy.GothicGolem29 (talk)
Option 3 Only because in almost all cases, such superlative hooks warrant broader discussion over interestingness and reductiveness anyway (IMO). Besides this, I wouldn't oppose either of options 2 and 4.Kingsif (talk)02:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 > Option 2 > Option 4 > Option 1. I agree they can be problematic and should be vetted. What really bothers me about most of them is that in most cases there'ssomething more interesting. Unless the very fact it was the first is interesting for some reason, let's at least look for something more. For an example,this was pulled recently at ERRORS. There's nothing inherently interesting about the first Slovenian restaurant with three stars having a woman chef. If the chef had been an ostrich, that would be interesting.Valereee (talk)09:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 4 only. Options 1 and 2 are excessive. Option 3 is instruction creep and unnecessary when he should continue trusting reviewers and promoters.Flibirigit (talk)03:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: I think the community as a whole is already well aware of the potential issues here and is using the tools as its disposal well to deal with them. Those tools includeWP:ERRORS: I don't see that the occasional prompt pulling (and they do seem to be very occasional) is necessarily a terrible thing: that final check is part of the system too.UndercoverClassicistT·C19:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. Regular reviewers and promoters seem to be generally aware of why superlative hooks are challenging and are likely to query the sources or challenge the hooks in the nom discussion before the hooks are either promoted or brought to DYKT. We do not need a blanket ban on superlatives (some are supported by multiple and/or very reliable/robust sources) and superlatives are often likely to be interesting to readers. Appropriate questions on the part of reviewers and promoters, combined with an occasional discussion at DYKT or ERRORS, seems like a small price to pay compared to losing superlative hooks entirely.Dclemens1971 (talk)19:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They obviously haven't been querying sources or challenging the hooks, given how many wind up at ertors. The problem is that the process is geared to pass noms through. We should be actively trying to disprove the assertions, including questioning exactly what the words mean. (ie: is a French book one written in French or one published in France or...) That way we can be more sure of their validity. And some articles just may not have any good hooks. Not everything needs to get in. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)15:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not many have ended up at errors in comparison to the numbers that got rejected in review, or successfully ran at DYK. The assertion that there hasn't been largely competent reviewing is false. The few that end up at ERRORS get remembered because they are highly visible. The many that got rejected in review are forgotten, and the ones that run successfully are equally forgotten because nobody kicked up a stink.4meter4 (talk)15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a ban on "firsts" sourced only to a stats database (which I've seen multiple times for some sports hooks). We should rely onWP:SECONDARY sources analyzing and making the claim, not primary source stats databases (which also may not be complete) on what might be a trivialWP:OR "first".—Bagumba (talk)07:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since it felt a little rushed last year, I figured now would be a good time to start getting things together for the Halloween/Samhain/Dios de las Muertas/All Saints day sets. Im starting the writing on a couple new species articles that can be halloween themed. What are others thinking?--Kevmin§16:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can look through the nominations we already have for anything that could be used, we’re not too far out they couldn’t be held I don’t think.Kingsif (talk)16:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a current nomination for the Bulgarian noble who survived with a spear through his eye. The picture would work well!GGOTCC13:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did one onPolybius. It's an urban legend about an addictive arcade machine released in Portland, Oregon suburbs in 1981. It gets children hooked and then scrambles their brains. The article/subject fits, but the hook itself is about a historian. All the spooky aspects are somewhat fictional,Rjjiii (talk)02:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the chances that DYK will be running every 12 hours at the end of October? Should we prepare two sets? I could probably put together at least six Halloween hooks if needed.Thriley (talk)18:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the ONLY mainpage compliant image of decent quality
I'm finishing drafting for a newflat wormarticle, named forFreddy Kreuger, and I want to verify the compliance of the image I would use in the nomination. The image is licensed CC-By-2.0 and verified by flickerbot to the Flicker stream it came from. The question is how does the Freddie cosplay fall out with regards to copyright of a character?@BlueMoonset,Nikkimaria, andRoySmith:--Kevmin§17:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: I have reverted your change to theFreddius. One, the claw image is the one in the nomination, so removing it immediately put the nomination at odds with DYK rules. Two, while cosplay images are allowed on commons, its clear from discussion withNikkimaria andSchwede66 that they are not mainpage complaint.--Kevmin§17:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a zombie-related hook of mine that's already been promoted, but I don't know when it's due to run, if you wanted to sub it in to fill a second set?Kingsif (talk)20:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, prep 6 is full. We have, I think, six more themed noms. Is it time to, um, work them into prep7? Better now than when that's got too many hooks in to bump down to prep3/4.Kingsif (talk)22:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, none of the others at the moment have image options. The photo of Barrenechea's house (also in article) isn't exactly on-theme. I will look around other noms we might've overlooked, and other content we might be able to whip up. Also ping to@Dclemens1971: who I know has looked at some of the Halloween hooks, and has been building out prep7 with other hooks.Kingsif (talk)23:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only see five hooks in the holding area so I didn't realize we'd be able to do two sets. (Can we run two sets with fewer than 9 hooks? Not sure how that works.) We can move the Freddius hook from Prep 6 if you need one with an image. Feel free to bump Prep 7 to Prep 3 or split it up among preps 2 and 3 (although it does have a lovely variety as it is if I do say so myself).Dclemens1971 (talk)23:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as another prep opens up entirely, I'm sure we can wholesale move it ;) Freddius might have to do it if the sarcophagi won't. There's five in SOHA, my unreviewed nom. I might nom another but wouldn't want to overload. We can incorporate other hooks - ask the sarcophagi nom if they don't mind Halloween, and there's an approved nom about a cemetery for slaves being built over...Kingsif (talk)23:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, with themed sets I also prefer a bit of variety in how hooks connect to the theme, rather than a whole repetitive set of heavily laid-on Halloween/Christmas characters. Alt0 could work IMO.Kingsif (talk)23:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I split the set. There are five in SOHA, plus Willows Inn in the image slot, Barrenechea and sarcophagi on this page, plus Zombies is also a 5x expansion. Nine and nine I reckon.--Launchballer14:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've got the go-ahead for the Deir el-Balah sarcophagi image to be used, which I think is more evocative of Halloween than the Willows Inn building! I can promote at least some of them to prep.Kingsif (talk)23:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of concern isTemplate:Did you know nominations/Shockwave (Six Flags Great America). Promoted to GA on September 27, but not nominated until October 10. I would be inclined to reject from an experienced nominator, but given that this appears to be only the third nomination by this nominator, there is a case for leniency. I can see a case for rejecting anyway due to the current backlog. I haven't been involved in DYK very much for the last several years so I'm taking this here for a greater advertising because I'm simply not all that up-to-date with current DYK process norms.Hog FarmTalk01:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The GA was apparently passed on 27 September, but doesn't seem to have been made official until 9 October (see[1] and the comments on the GA). I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.--Launchballer01:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... that, whenAline Sitoe Diatta's death was announced, nearly forty years after she died, she was also declared a "heroine of Senegal"?
Firstly, nowhere in the article does it say exactly when her death was made public. Secondly, I cannot access the sources, and there is no quote from them in the nomination. Third, the hook is a little clunky anyhow. The alt hooks are not particularly good either.
I would therefore suggest a new hook, something like the following:
ALT3: ... thatAline Sitoe Diatta, a declared heroine of Senegal who died ofscurvy in a French concentration camp, may have been a scapegoat?
I am currently on a trip and won't be on a computer until Saturday at the earliest, so I can't check as the source is offline. I could request for a quote, but since we are running out of time, I would suggest a pull or bump. One issue is that the hook fails to meetWP:DYKHFC since neither statement (her death from scurvy nor her being a scapegoat) has a footnote. I see that her death and the late reveal of her death are now in the article, although again without a footnote. As long as that is resolved, may I suggest this alternative?:
ALT ... that althoughAline Sitoe Diatta died from scurvy in aconcentration camp in Senegal in 1944, her death was not made public until the 1980s?
At the very least this wording seems safe since it does not say exactly when her death was made public. However, given the lack of time, a bumping off or a pull seems necessary here.
Thanks, but I don't think that will work because the article doesn't even make clear it was made public in the 1980s (although it implies it was). I will pull the hook for now and substitute it with another nom until the issue is fully resolved.Gatoclass (talk)11:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Wasn't kept abreast of all these updates. I just got a notification that this DYK went live but didn't see it on the main page. I believe this happened in 1983. I can try to make that more clear in the article, if it's deemed necessary, though I think that it's reasonably clear already. Here's the quotes:
The absence of fruit or vegetables in the camp diet led to her death from scurvy on May 22, 1944, less than a year later. Her death was not revealed either to her family or the general public until 1983. (Baum 2016, p. 157)
In 1983, during his first electoral campaign for the Senegalese presidency (he succeeded President Senghor in 1980 when Senghor retired), he promised Alougai Diatta, the widower of Aline Sitoé, to find out what happened to her after she was exiled. Later that year, President Diouf sent an official delegation to Mali, including a prominent Diola researcher, Fulgence Sagna; together with the director of the Archives Nationales du Sénégal, Salilou Mbaye, and a Senegalese journalist to investigate. They found her death certificate and her unmarked grave in a prison cemetery at Timbuktu. President Diouf declared her a heroine of Senegal, introducing her into the canon of Senegalese national figures like Lat Dior, Al Haji Umar Tal, and other Senegalese who struggled against colonial rule. (Baum 2009, p. 52)
WP:DYKN is currently deeply backlogged, with nominations from October 19 currently not transcluding. I thought we were supposed to implement backlog mode a few days ago? What happened to that?
Speaking of backlog mode, considering how many nominations we have, I wonder if we should implement some kind of retroactive date for backlog mode. For example, instead of all nominations from October 26 (for example) by eligible nominators requiring two QPQs, this would instead start from an earlier date (to be determined by consensus). Coupled with another two-sets-a-day run, and that should help cut down the backlog significantly.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)09:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog mode is currently on. It would be hard to make it retroactive as the notification given to submitters is located in the submission form.CMD (talk)09:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be possible if the retroactive date isn't too unreasonable (for example, requiring only nominations from October, or only from October 12). Given that a significant portion of our nominations would not be affected anyway since the noms are ineligible, it shouldn't be too hard. To make things easier, we could even just do one message per editor for all nominations, rather than messaging them individually per nomination.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose retrospective backlog mode as it is easier and fairer to inform nominators when they nominate. At 00:00 on 19 October when backlog mode started, there were 226 unapproved and 144 approved nominations and at 00:00 on 25 October, there were 217 unapproved and 188 approved nominations. So backlog mode is working, but there seem to have been a lot of nominations.TSventon (talk)10:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, looking for some guidance here on whetherWP:DYKCITE supersedesWP:DYKHFC. A nom I've been reviewing has bogged down (Template:Did you know nominations/Homeopathy Unrefuted) and there is only one suitable hook in play at the moment - but the hook (ALT6/ALT6a) is drawn from the plot summary for this documentary film. DYKCITE allows for uncited plot summaries, but DYKHFC requires thatthe facts of the hook in the article be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear. Furthermore, as a reviewer, I am not going to have time to watch this documentary, even if I had access to it, to validate the claim drawn from the plot summary. Looking for some guidance on whether a valid hook can be drawn from an unsourced plot summary section. Thanks --Dclemens1971 (talk)21:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While a documentary, the spirit ofWP:DYKFICTION should be in play for that anyway. If the nominator likes the angle for the ALT6 hook content, I suggest someone should look for something like a critical review of the documentary that has someone relevant give an opinion on the content and include it at the article. Glancing over the article, I think it is not very well written and not that well balanced - the response section at the moment manages to commit a double sin of overly quoting and not really informing about the responses (the quotes it uses are often hedging and about what other people might think? And whether it covers homeopathy?!) - which is why finding a suitable hook seems highly unlikely.Kingsif (talk)21:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule of thumb is that a hook should have strong sourcing. Whenever this is any doubt (like you express), demand an independent citation. We do need to have a discussion abut the use of primary sources for hooks, as this has come up a lot in the last year.Viriditas (talk)21:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think hooks based on primary sources should be banned entirely, as long as they are not controversial or contentious. They are not ideal for controversial facts, such as "first" hooks, sure, but for more mundane things they should be fine.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Example? The central problem with using PS for hooks is that it means no secondary sources has highlighted the importance of the material, only the reader.Viriditas (talk)23:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, we often allow primary sources for things like uncontroversial information, like early life and the like. When there is a reason to doubt, then we can cite secondary sources. As for your central problem, I do not see the issue. DYK is about highlighting interesting facts about a subject, usually determined by the nominator and a reviewer. It is not about whatsources think is interesting about them.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we use secondary sources is because they highlight what is important. If DYK is using primary sources to do this, then that's a problem in my view. I realize you don't see that problem for reasons unique to your own views.Viriditas (talk)00:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I agree with Naruto, nominators and reviewers decide on what makes for an interesting hook, and nowhere in the guidelines is it stated that hooks cannot be based on primary sources.Gatoclass (talk)08:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of does, though. "The article must be based on reliable sources, which must be cited inline."WP:REPUTABLE: "We publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."Viriditas (talk)09:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The impasse stems from no one having done the relevant RS analysis; without that, we can't really assess whether loaded language is appropriate.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)22:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the article, there are three sources that use the word terrorist. One is theIndia's Most Fearless book series, one is the US government, one is (indirectly, and not used for such in the article) the Indian government ([2]). While the book is predominantly authored byShiv Aroor, who we could call a notable and expert journalist, it seems to have endorsements by the Indian military, so may not be entirely neutral in this regard. Obviously, world governments are not independent sources for determining use of "terrorist".
I find it interesting to note that the group has not been globally labelled a terrorist group, though its leader has been by the UN. Pakistan has formally banned the group for over two decades, does not refer to them as terrorists, and may informally support them. Based on how the BBC and the Guardian prefer the term "militant" ([3],[4]), and that Reuters uses "terrorist" in quotes and "militant" in its own voice ([5]), an overview of RS coverage up to May 2025 does not strongly use "terrorist". Indeed, RS appear more likely to be against using it.
I've already given my two cents (support use of militant, fwiw), but my fear from my understanding of the sources is that most of the coverage of Varadarajan's death is the sort of "brave soldier heroically dies in the line of fire" stuff. Which is reasonable, that's how he died, but it also means most of the coverage of him directly will mainly not feature any sort of critical perspective. Most of the coverage is by sources that will obviously favour the perspective of the Indian government, and simply being proscribed as a terrorist organisation should not mean that Wikipedia calls a group and its members terrorists. I am woefully out of my depth when considering the topic(s) at hand here, my stance is just basically that such loaded language should be avoided unless there's exceptionally persuasive reason otherwise.LivelyRatification (talk)07:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a debate over whether or not to use the word "terrorist" in the hook alone, or also in the article? Because the latter also employs the word copiously.
If it isn't appropriate to use the word in the hook, then it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice in the article either, per the same arguments given above.Gatoclass (talk)07:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason why the nomination was closed was because, as of today, it is already two months old. PerWP:DYKTIMEOUT, nominations that are older than two months old may be closed if they remain unpromoted and have unresolved issues. Although the nomination was closed just a few days before the two-month mark, it did not seem like the issues were going to be resolved soon anyway.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of DYK checklist (nearly completed)
Thanks for that. This is what I saw when I wrote "pretty much everything else seems to be in order", and it's what led me to believe that "the issues were going to be resolved soon" (in other words, to make theassumption that the review process was nearly finished).
That, coupled with the fact that DYKTIMEOUT saysif a nomination timed out while it was waiting for a review or a re-review, consider reviewing the nomination rather than rejecting it – hence theassumption that working through the reviewer's requests and trying to sort the last details so that they'd be happy to add that last missingY was just part of normal DYK process.
Okay. It never hurts to ask, right? It all started so well (Great job on the article and nice hooks to boot, etc.) and ended with an irrevocable "yeet". Too bad. Bit of a rollercoaster ride. Thanks for considering the request anyhow. --Cl3phact0 (talk)08:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some connections between the comments and cited essays with Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
WP:OVERQUOTE (the essay)
"Quotations should not substitute for exposition in Wikipedia's own voice. They are useful for capturing the original author's tone or attitude, but shouldn't be used instead of a clear editorial summary of what they say."
"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. [...] Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, [...]"
"In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution may need to be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing."
WP:TOOMANYREFS (the essay)
"If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability. [...] If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill."
"When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to see which part of the material is supported by the citation; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed."
WP:OVERQUOTE (the essay)
"A major problem with quotes in the lead is the concern about giving WP:UNDUE weight to one or a few sources within the limited space of the lead section."
"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. [...] Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery."
Reviewer comment
" I stick to one citation and bundle as necessary. I do this as a courtesy to the reader and to promote readability of the text. I'm still not clear why there is a "better source needed" tag."
.jpg)
Y was just part of normal DYK process.
