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)

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)