Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Guidelines

WP:DYKELECT wording

The current paragraph reads,
Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates.

While this is indeed the wording that was as WP:DYK prior to the reorganization, it doesn't reflect the actual practice at DYK for a number of years, which is that DYK nominations could not be run in the 30 days prior to the election, including election day itself, but that such articles could be held and safely run on the main page once all the polls had closed for the election.

Can we revise this to reflect current practice? Maybe something like:
Articles and hooks featuring election candidates can not appear on the main page in the 30 days prior to the election or while the polls are open, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. Approved nominations are to be held until after the polls have closed, after which they may be run.

Any thoughts or wordsmithing? It occurs to me, now that I've written a proposed revision, that with early voting now more common in the US, which wasn't the case when this guideline was first formulated, we may not be properly accounting for formalized early voting, or even the start of mail-in/absentee balloting. If we need to, that is, which we may not. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think election season is election season whether there's mail-in voting or not – if we start adjusting for how long election season is, we'll never run a hook about an incumbent congressman again. I'm fine with the adjustment, and concur that it's standard practice :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:QPQ implementatiob

I have problems reviewing my DYK for Maurice Duplessis because users apply what I believe to be an overly restrictive and user-unfriendly interpretation of QPQ. QPQ says that If you have nominated five or more articles in the past, you must complete a full review of one other nomination (unrelated to you) for every subsequent article you nominate‍. My talk page demonstrates that for 7 DYKs I submitted, I reviewed 18, so QPQ is clearly met. Yet I am constantly asked to provide a specific article each time I make a DYK nomination. The QPQ check tool [1] only shows that I submitted DYK nominations but, does not log my reviews. Users Z1720 and Flibirigit seem to suggest that I have to remember which DYKs I claimed a year or two ago, or check my every DYK to see if I used it in my other reviews. With 7 DYKs it is not that hard, but with 100 it is too burdensome to participate in. I don't see the point, though. Too mamy IRL things happen for users to remember a DYK they submitted ages ago. We should make the process as easy and as straightforward for users as possible, but we opt for bureaucracy here. And anyway the rules only say that, in mathematical terms, if you submitted n DYKs, where n>5, you must do at least n-5 reviews. The users acknowledge I did that but seem to imply there is some kind of obligation to remember what I edited 2 years ago. Am I the asshole here?

Also, I propose that from now on, promoters of DYKs log reviews a person made to the QPQ tool. This is going to make checking the QPQ duty much simpler. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You claim that you have done more reviews than nominations, but no reviewer has been able to verify it. Reviewers ask for a specific QPQ to be listed to do the verification. Tracking your reviews/QPQs in your own user space is a good idea. Flibirigit (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

When I review nominations, I will check the QPQ to ensure that the editor did not abandon the review. If a specific review is not been provided, then the reviewer has to check more of them. If you are unsure if you used a review for a QPQ, you can click in the nomination, then click "What links here". If the review is linked to another DYK template, then it might have already been used for a QPQ. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's that difficult to simply link any random QPQ that you've done over the years rather than having to link to a list of QPQs and have the reviewer assume good faith. If you're unsure that the QPQ you've done has already been used, you can check Special:Whatlinkshere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I keep a list of unused QPQs in my personal sandbox, it is very user-friendly and very easy to keep track. I suggest you start a list of QPQ reviews as you do them going forward, or just do your nominations right after a QPQ review when you still remember what you have reviewed. —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the guideline requires that a specific QPQ be linked so that a reviewer can easily verify that a QPQ has (1) been done and (2) not already been used for another nomination. If a nominator has 7 DYKs, it is true that it's not hard at all to verify which QPQ is being used for a nomination, but when you have made dozens of nominations, it's going to be a hassle for the reviewer to try to identify which QPQ you're using for a specific nomination. One can do what Kusma does and keep a list of unused QPQs somewhere, or do a QPQ just before/after nominating an article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A reviewer needs to check that the submitted QPQ is both a complete DYK review—that all the DYK criteria are checked—and that it hasn't been used previously for another nomination. That isn't possible if the reviewer is being pointed to a pile of previous reviews, some of which have been used and others not, rather than a specific review. WP:QPQ is very clear: You can do your QPQ review before or after you make your nomination, but for your nomination to be approved you will need to provide a link, at your nomination, to your completed QPQ review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:5X

Should the fivefold expansion summary be clarified to highlight that "the last version of the article before the expansion began" is actually defined as the largest prose size an article has had? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This section also ignores the 7-day newness requirement from two paragraphs prior. It currently states Articles can be made eligible via a fivefold expansion of an article's prose. This calculation is made from the last version of the article before the expansion began. This seems a little vague to me about how one defines the beginning of the expansion or the expansion itself. I don't use DYKcheck so I might be wrong about this, but it seems like it might be more accurate to state: "This calculation is made from the most recent version of the article which is at least seven days older than the nomination timestamp." – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

DYKFICTION

See User_talk:Theleekycauldron#DYKFICTION. It seems to be a personal opinion of a single editor, not a rule or a guideline. I wonder if this page should be tagged with {{user essay}}? I've seen DYKFICTION referred to as a binding rule that if not met disqualifies hooks, and I think this is not backed up by consensus. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

DYKFICTION? It was someone's personal opinion, but not mine. See its instatement into DYKSG, and it being upheld by RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Thank you for claryfing this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, is it not possible/ideal to perform a history merge of the current guidelines and WP:DYKSG? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A histmerge wouldn't be possible, I don't think – too much date overlap between too many editors. I've added a hatnote to the top of DYKG, and I may reintroduce the hist-of-rule refs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent hook and DYKFICTION

The following discussion took place at Talk:Main Page while Comets in fiction was a DYK:

... that Halley's Comet is a living creature in several works of fiction?

This seems to fall foul of WP:DYKFICTION, since it tells us nothing about the real world. Srnec (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There are several works of fiction in which Halley's Comet is a living creature. This is the real world fact documented, with references, in the target article: Comets in fiction § Cometary life. WP:DYKFICTION is applicable when "the subject of the hook is a work of fiction or a fictional character". That is not the case here. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: That doesn't make sense, because one could always argue that the real world fact documented is that there exists a work of fiction such that [whatever the hooks claims]. But simply acknowledging that a hook is about a work of fiction is not sufficient. I believe that an article like Comets in fiction is a work of fiction or a fictional character. The plural "comets" isn't a workaround. The hooks is about works of fiction and, if Halley's Comet is a living creature in a work, it is a character. The hook "fact" is clearly of the nature that DYKFICTION was written for. In works of fiction Halley's Comet can be anything. Srnec (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Srnec: We'll have to agree to disagree. The section of the article the hook links to is not about a work of fiction: it's about real-life comets and how they have been used in fiction. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa, PrimalMustelid, and Shooterwalker: from the nom. Bruxton (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm obviously not a neutral party, but: comets are real-world phenomena that get portrayed in counterfactual ways in fiction. That's not the same thing as being a fictional character. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Halley's Comet is a living creature" is certainly not a claim about any real-life comet. There is no limit to how they are portrayed in fiction. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, but I think there is a big misunderstanding here about what DYKFICTION is about. The responses given here could save just about any hook about a work of fiction, most of which involve real-world phenomena. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: the only thing the hook tells us about the real world is what Bazza 7 identified above: There are several works of fiction in which Halley's Comet is a living creature. But if that is enough, then DYKFICTION is a dead letter because any hook seemingly violating it tells us the same thing: that there are works of ficiton that say what the hook claims they do. The hooks tells us nothing about Halley's Comet. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that there is a pretty big difference between "Halley's Comet is [portrayed as] a living creature" and e.g. "Frodo Baggins is a Hobbit". TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

But, e.g., alternate history, in which Hitler can win WWII. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I might add that Halley's-Comet-as-living-creature is not much different from a Hobbit. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I would certainly think "... that Hitler winning is a common scenario in alternate history?" a perfectly cromulent DYK hook (apart from the external link, obviously). TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I argued that an article like Comets in fiction falls under the DYKFICTION guideline and that the form of the hook, "[real thing] is [counterfactual] in [some] work of fiction", does not involve the real world in any relevant way. Both of these points were disputed. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The hook is fine. DYKFICTION is there to prevent people from creating their hook just from a cool idea from a specific work. Talking about general trends in fiction is fine. It is bad to say "the Smurfs are blue", it is fine to say "aliens in fiction commonly have green or blue skins". —Kusma (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that talking about general trends is fine, but I don't agree that the hook in question does so. So, "aliens in fiction commonly have green or blue skins" is fine (if true), but "Neimoidians have green skin" is not. Both your example and TompaDompa's last one use the word "commonly", which brings the hook into contact with the real world, since it implies something (a trend or trope) that exists outside any work of fiction. The actual hook simply states that in some unspecified number of works "Halley's Comet is a living creature" [i.e., Smurfs are blue]. In other words, how is "Halley's Comet is a living creature" not just a cool idea from more than one specific work? Srnec (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree with Kusma. If it was just "that the comet is a living creature in a work of fiction", that would not pass, because that is entirely in-universe; but because it is specified that more than one real-world works use the trope, the focus is on events happening in real life. It's borderline, but borderline acceptable, in my view. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand the caution with fiction but I look at this along the lines of 'in popular culture', with the main subject of the hook being non-fictional. If the hook was "that Halley's comet inspired characters in several works of fiction?", I'm guessing it wouldn't be a problem. So why would it be a problem to specify that they are living characters, which makes it more interesting? – Reidgreg (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I really would have liked to have been pinged about this discussion back in March; I discovered it now as a result of discussion at WT:DYK#Neutron stars in fiction. Anyway, I agree with Kusma that hooks about trends in fiction are, and should be, fine. The point of WP:DYKFICTION as I see it is to prevent ... that in [work of fiction], [plot description]?" (and for that matter ... that [fictional character] [in-universe description]?). TompaDompa (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sea of blue

The WP:SEAOFBLUE clause under WP:DYK200 was brought to my attention. It currently states: A boldlink next to a non-boldlink does not breach MOS:SEAOFBLUE, but any two non-boldlinks or two boldlinks must be kept separate. I question the use of must here, which suggests that this is a policy-level matter (WP:ACCESSIBILITY would have been my guess). However, it only cites an MOS guideline which states When possible, do not place links next to each other. Given the general preference toward brevity (particularly with multiple-article hooks) and the fact that this is a "when possible" guideline, I suggest that the language be made less restrictive: "A boldlink next to a non-boldlink does not breach MOS:SEAOFBLUE, but any two non-boldlinks or two boldlinks should ideally be kept separate, when possible." Perhaps adding: When in doubt, nominators should provide ALT versions for the promoter. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think emphasising clarity for the Main Page is a good thing—same way that the hook "must" not contain redirects or redlinks despite both being acceptable in articles, or that the first hook "must" have an image, despite that being unfindable in any policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AirshipJungleman29. Standards for what appears on the main page are higher. Srnec (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I still feel that should would suffice, and allow room for WP:IAR. My particular concern is for multiple-article hooks. A non-boldlink in a hook can always be unlinked. But other rules require the hook articles to be linked and bolded. It can be difficult enough to phrase an interesting multiple-article hook without having to worry about adjacent boldlinks. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What happened to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines?

Last time I looked here for rules on reviewing DYKs, Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines existed. Now it doesn't. Does this mean that reviewers are now limited to the rules in Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, without the more subjective supplementary ones? (Specifically D14, the most subjective supplementary guideline... which I admit, I am tempted to invoke in one specific case...) --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

GRuban, it should be the case that everything from the old guidelines page was transferred to the new. To take D14 as an example, you will find it right at the top of the new page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha. OK, makes sense, I guess I didn't see it because of the lack of numbered points. Carrying on. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Numbers of clicks/views

Can someone please explain to me the value of numbers of clicks/views, in DYK? I'll list my thoughts about the matter below, so that maybe you can gell me where I'm wrong?

• Newspapers and commercial TV need to prove the largest possible readership or audience (equivalent to our views numbers) in order to attract advertising, which tends to be their primary income. We do not have that motivation, because WP's income does not depend on views numbers per article. So we do not need to look for maximum viewing numbers by tricking people to click, by clever hooks.
• Quality views matter more than numbers of views. That means a quality view of the actual article, otherwise what is the point? So a DYK hook needs to attract quality views, not numbers of views. "Quality hook" in this case means one which will attract the kind of people who would actually read the article.
• To attract quality views by people who will actually read the article, and therefore be motivated to read similar articles, it is reasonable for hooks to be designed to attract those people. We don't need to worry so much about popular culture articles, because however you phrase the hook for pop culture articles, most readers would get some pleasure out of reading that sort of article. But for some specialised articles, their hooks need to attract people who would actually read those articles. So it is reasonable to attempt to attract people who are actually interested in that subject.
• A big worry for me, about the current reviewers' need for viewing numbers for numbers' sake, is that I have often seen reviewers despair of finding popular clickbait hooks for specialist subjects, so that they respond by saying that they would really like specialist articles to be excluded from DYK, on the grounds that the only hooks that can be found for such articles cannot be calculated to attract people who will only read popular culture.
• So with regard to the above, I would say that it is not kind to to give our readers a popular-culture-style hook in situations where they will click expecting light-hearted fun and familiar material, but then end up looking at something which they are never going to read at all. It is, on the other hand, reasonable to phrase some hooks so that readers will end up looking at something they might actually read. You might attract fewer clicks that way, but at least you won't get people clicking and then being irritated by finding no more light-hearted popular fun than was contained in the hook.
• To summarise, I think that click numbers for the sake of numbers alone is pointless, and sometimes potentially irritating for the reader. We should include a note in the reviewing instructions to say that quality hooks (for specialised articles only) will end up giving us more satisfied, long-term readers for that part of our article collection, than we have now. It is impossible, and not fair on some editors, to try to shoehorn specialist articles into popular-culture-style hooks, while giving the DYK nominator no other option option but to withdraw their nomination if their preference is for quality hooks and quality clicks. Storye book (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • A few examples wouldn't go amiss, Storye book. What do you mean by "popular clickbait hooks" or "popular-culture-style hooks"? For what it's worth, I have never struggled to find interesting hooks for the non-popular-culture articles I have nominated.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • By popular clickbait hooks and popular-culture-style hooks, I mean what is generally expected by reviewers, bearing in mind the current guidelines. Those guidelines serve perfectly well those readers who don't know anything much about anything (so long as they are not misled) - and, fair enough, we all have information gaps about some subjects. Like yourself, I have not usually had difficulty in finding interesting hooks for non-popular-culture articles. But some reviewers who have strong views on that subject, have had great difficulty. I have been careful not to give examples or name names, because that would look as if I were picking out individuals for criticism, which would not be fair on them. All reviewers are doing their best to follow guidelines, and some of them work so very hard doing that, but in the above respect, I am not sure that the guidelines are completely fit for purpose. Storye book (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
      • I've changed my mind, I actually don't have the willpower to write paragraphs upon paragraphs of deliberate obsfuscation when both of us and the whole of DYK knows exactly which guideline and which individuals are being discussed here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
        • Then I give up, too, if this is going to get personal. I was only looking to improve or at least clarify the guidelines, and I have been very careful to keep it impersonal. But if this discussion is going to become unpleasant, I don't want to know. Storye book (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

          I quite like knowing the readership stats. Checking the archives, it appears that DYK started recording these in 2008, presumably because they had then become available.

          To establish how much the reader engages with a page once they have clicked through to it, you need other metrics like the bounce rate and dwell time. But they measure aspects of the page while the views stat is a measure of the hook's effectiveness.

          My view is that the more stats we have, the better. What we make of them is up to us. "Different strokes for different folks".

          Andrew🐉(talk) 20:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

          • • "What we make of them is up to us"? I agree that, as a general principle, stats are of interest; I record the DYK views stats of my created articles, although for curiosity's sake only. However, I think that if those stats, or projected stats, are used for harm, e.g. as sole grounds for attempts to block DYK nominations, then I don't think that that is a good idea. Storye book (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

DYKFICTION

The clarity of DYKFICTION seems to be a recurring issue: there are two discussions about it above, as well as the recent discussions about the hook for Tobey. I've revised the wording slightly today from the hook must substantially involve the real world in some way to the hook must be focused on a real-world fact. "In some way" was really ambiguous, whereas I think saying outright that it must be focused on a real-world fact is more clear about what we're looking for.

I also boldly edited the last sentence Simply acknowledging that a hook is about a work of fiction is not sufficient, to add nor is adding an unrelated real-world fact to a hook which is otherwise about a fictional element, in order to make it clear that fig-leafing a fictional hook with a real-world factoid that has no bearing on it is not acceptable.

Would anyone object if I added some hatted made-up examples of what's acceptable or not, based on those discussions, with rationales? Things like:

• Incorrect: Did you know that Orions have green skin?

Focuses on a specific fictional species having green skin in-universe

• Correct: Did you know that aliens in fiction are often depicted with green skin?

Focuses on the real world tendency of creators to depict various extraterrestrial creatures with particular skin tones

---

• Incorrect: Did you know that Jon Snow knows nothing in an episode released on October 23rd?

Jon Snow's ignorance has nothing to do with the release date of the episode

• Correct: Did you know that Madeup McCharacter wields a Scottish broadsword because Fake Authorname studied that weapon for forty years?

The author's real-world experience directly relates to the character's use of the weapon

Hatted, it wouldn't take up much space, and it might be helpful for newer people to see how they should shape these kinds of hooks. Obviously I'm happy to see other examples or have these ones tweaked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a fresh example:

• ... that a magical inanimate dog may have been a taxidermy dog, an automaton, or a metaphor?

This seems unacceptable because it's not definite. Two of the alleged explanations are in-universe and the third is just an opinion. Other scholars consider the dog to have been a lapdog and, as it was magical in-universe, it's anyone's guess what it was because it was entirely imaginary. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: I think that's a good idea. The first one in particular about real-world tendencies would head off a lot of disagreement about X in fiction hooks, which I am a fairly prolific producer of—indeed, I came here because of discussion at WT:DYK#Neutron stars in fiction touching upon this very issue. TompaDompa (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that, because I'm fairly sure one of your "X in fiction" hooks was the inspiration for the first example - might have been the supernova one. I've left a comment at that discussion. This unfortunately is one of those rules that seems quite simple but in practice people trip over a lot; maybe if we can get consensus for some boundaries it might prevent issues like what you're encountering in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Another recurring issue with DYKFICTION is how it applies to game mechanics. Do game mechanics count as plot or not? For example, "... that in Gamey McGame, the game's ending depends on a minor decision made at the start of the game?" I've seen proposed hooks about game mechanics be rejected per DYKFICTION, but others argued that they indeed meet DYKFICTION. An RfC on the matter might be a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that particular example would be dicey since it's all about the plot. But it could be workable if some additional sourcing was available: "... that the developers of Gamey McGame made the best ending contingent on an inconsequential early decision specifically to annoy their fans?" Needs some wordsmithing, but it's real world. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it was a bad example, but the point was that it can be unclear when a hook about a game mechanic is in-universe and when it's real-world. DYKFICTION's boundaries can be pretty blurry especially for some topics and game mechanics are probably an example of that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Game mechanics aren't fiction though, they're the structural elements of how a game is played by the player, who exists in the real world. "Press A to jump" is a mechanic. "Mushrooms let Mario jump better" is the lore. In that vein, I don't think building a hook around a mechanic would be a DYKFICTION issue.

What it would run afoul of though, is the interestingness requirement. It'd be like trying to build a hook around how many chapters a book has or what chords a piece of music uses. Unless there's some reason that these things are interesting in the context of that given work — the racing game is controlled by blinking at your phone; the book is structured to have a mathematically significant number of chapters and pages; the chords refer back to an earlier piece somehow — all that stuff is just basic structural stuff that isn't interesting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Seconding this – I think DYKFICTION doesn't apply when it says something interesting/unusual about the real-world craftsmanship decisions of the creator. Like, check this out:

• ... that in Olivia Rodrigo's "Drivers License", the first few notes are the sound of a car starting?

That might only focus on the song, but composition isn't the same as synopsis – the hook points out an interesting intersection of the lyrical motif (driving) and the musical motif (repeated quarter notes on the tonic). Compare:

• ... that Olivia Rodrigo's "Drivers License", the narrator is driving through her ex-boyfriend's neighborhood and thinking about their breakup?

more of a snoozefest, I think :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)