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 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)

DYK eligibility for former redirects

Are articles that were redirected and then restored to mainspace after several years eligible for DYK? I recently came across Baltej Singh Dhillon in the new pages queue, which I think is quite an interesting bio that could make a good DYK candidate. The article was redirected in 2016 and then recently restored after the subject was appointed to the Canadian Senate. Would this qualify as "new" under the DYK guidelines? Thanks in advance for any responses. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Articles need to meet WP:DYKNEW. If something existed before, the easiest way to get it accepted for DYK is either as a 5-times expansion or achieving GA status. Schwede66 07:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I've gotten plenty of articles that fit that description through DYK – if it didn't exist before, hasn't existed for some time, it is essentially new. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I realize that it technically might not meet WP:DYKNEW, but it seems to meet the spirit of being a new article. I came across it in the new pages queue for whatever that's worth. If similar types of articles have gotten through DYK before I'll probably nominate it after some more clean up has been done; I just don't want to go to the effort if it might be quick failed. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

theleekycauldron has definitely more clout here than me, so you should be good. Schwede66 08:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The article in question has not been rewritten, just had sources and a new section added: . Normal 5x expansion rules apply. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems overly-bureaucratic if you ask me. A page that has been a redirect for 9 years and then restored after a clear change in notability is basically a new article. Focusing on the "rules" at the expense of excluding an interesting page seems to go against the purpose of DYK, but hey what do I know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Nominating on behalf of others

Am I allowed to nominate DYKs on behalf of other people, with their consent? Some people I know don't speak English very well, but are producing quality, interesting articles. I could polish the articles up and make them DYK worthy, then write an interesting hook and nominate, but I wouldn't be the primary creator of the article. They'd be involved in the whole process, but just not writing the hooks themselves. seefooddiet (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet: You very much can, as long as you (or the author) is responsive to any comments the reviewer might make. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ik i'm late but DYKs are one example of which non-significant contributors/creators can nominate, unlike GA and FA. you don't even need their permission (although I would advise waiting until the 6th day in case). I did it with cozy game and 2024 Talerddig train collision. I considered getting the latter to ITN but have decided with DYK instead. JuniperChill (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry on Fivefold expansion

I'm working on an article, the Multi-purpose Arcade Combat Simulator. It's made since the 17th, but I constantly expand it on add more relevant information. Not sure if it can be calculated for fivefold expansion. Also, I'm thinking of nominating it. Ominae (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ominae: that doesn't come to a five-fold expansion (if you don't already have it, WP:DYKCHECK is a good tool for calculating this). It was created 10 days ago, which is outside the limit of WP:DYKNEW, so there's no guarantee that a reviewer would accept it. Tenpop421 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Dang. Oh well. Never mind. Was worth a shot. Ominae (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKINTEREST

Which place explains the common concept of hooks needing to be "interesting"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKINT is probably what you're looking for :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Aye, thanks _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKFICTION once again

We now have this hook running on the main page:

... that, near the ending of the 2005 interactive storytelling video game Façade, two characters portrayed through AI chatbots ask the player for relationship advice?

I don't see how that's compatible with If the subject of the hook is a creative work, the hook must be focused on a real-world fact. Certainly, it seems very similar to the "bad example" given recently by leeky: ... that Olivia Rodrigo's "Drivers License", the narrator is driving through her ex-boyfriend's neighborhood and thinking about their breakup.

Is this a "blurry boundaries" issue, or perhaps an indication that DYKFICTION is not reflecting current practice, given how often it seems to be coming up? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The hook is arguably about a game mechanic rather than its plot, in which case it would actually pass DYKFICTION since it's not talking about a plot detail. It just happens to take place as part of the game's ending. I've played Trip and Grace's adventure multiple times before and what happens really does happen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1287090900

@Narutolovehinata5: I would really discourage you from editing something unilaterally into the guidelines when another editor has disagreed with your interpretation of the underlying discussion in good faith. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I'm technically involved since I did state my support of the idea that quickfails should count as QPQs, my reading was independent of my personal viewpoint; had consensus gone the other way I still would have added a similar note. I understand you disagree with the interpretation and subscribe to an opposing viewpoint, but from my reading of the discussion, only two editors (yourself and Ktin) opposed QPQs counting as quickfails. On the other hand, several editors (BlueMoonset, RoySmith, Kevmin, Nikkimaria, CMD, and Kusma) supported quickfails counting as QPQs, in addition to myself. That seemed like a rather clear consensus to me regardless of my own personal opinion; the note was intended to reflect consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

For context to others: the relevant discussion here is Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 204#Quickfails not counting as QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, I don't think that I understand you disagree with the interpretation and subscribe to an opposing viewpoint really addresses what I said. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused about what the issue is here. Is the disagreement with my interpretation of consensus, or disagreement with me adding the note because I participated in the discussion? I brought that up because you were one of the two editors who opposed the "quickfails should count as QPQs" sentiment in the discussion and that particular comment was meant to acknowledge that. If the issue is the former, then I genuinely don't understand why, as at least to me the consensus (if a loose one) was that quickfails still count as full reviews; even if I did not participate in that discussion I would have reached the same conclusion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that you reverted me to restore your interpretation of the discussion unilaterally after I objected. Editing something BOLDly into a guideline page is already something that's fairly unique to DYK; reinstating the same edit after someone has objected is something I would really, really heavily discourage, especially given your role in the discussion. In other words, you're acting as an INVOLVED closer and not passing the "any reasonable person" standard, because at least one other reasonable person has expressed a different view. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Even if this view was a minority viewpoint in the discussion and was not what ultimately had consensus? I understand I'm involved, but I was acting in an WP:IAR capacity, especially with how clear the consensus was in the first place. In this case, what should have been done then: ask for an uninvolved editor to decide? We can ask some of the uninvolved DYK regulars to decide then whether or not to keep the note; some like Launchballer and SL93 never participated in the discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED says Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards as admins for INVOLVED purposes. The exception to INVOLVED is for situations where In straightforward cases ... the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Since someone has objected to your edit, it would then not be clear that any reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion.

@Launchballer: fair cop – it probably would've been advisable for me to bring it here first, or to WT:DYK or to NLH's talk. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're both involved and shouldn't have touched this, although I agree that a similar note should be added. I happen to disagree with the consensus, but a consensus is what it is.--Launchballer 00:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

thanks for weighing in as someone uninvolved :) i'm cool with letting the note stay if that's the consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKTIMEOUT and noms that have timed out because they are awaiting a review.

Should WP:DYKTIMEOUT be modified to state that nominations that have timed out due to a lack of review should not be closed, or are such cases already covered by "discretion"? I remember asking something similar over at WT:DYK a while back and the sentiment was that DYKTIMEOUT does not apply to nominations that are awaiting a review or re-review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Already covered by discretion, though it may be worth adding words to the effect of 'consider reviewing such nominations rather than closing them'.--Launchballer 03:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how to word it? Maybe Theleekycauldron also has an idea? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

DYKFICTION/mythology RfC has been closed.

The discussion was finally closed. Could an uninvolved editor put something about it at WP:DYKFICTION? I'd do it myself, but as I started the RfC I'm involved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer A permanent link to the RfC might also be useful for clarification purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, though will wait until after the section is archived.--Launchballer 00:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Should this be added to the guidelines?

From what I remember, if a nomination has already been closed, it's discouraged for the nominator (or even anyone) to boldly revert the closure without prior discussion. Should this be mentioned at the Rules for reviewing, or is this unnecessary? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

QPQ question

How long does can a review last before being void from QPQ, if there is any limit? Roast (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

no limit! there are many, many valid QPQs out there that have just never been used from a decade or more ago. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Another question: can you use an incomplete QPQ to cover it? Roast (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by 'incomplete QPQ'. If the QPQ was not a full review, then it doesn't count as it says you must complete a full review of one other nomination (unrelated to you) for every subsequent article you nominate‍. If you made a full review immediately before nominating, then it counts. JuniperChill (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

So basically, it has to get to the point of acceptance or rejection? Roast (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There were talks to implement that at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_201#QPQ_timeouts, but there's no consensus to implement that due to its complexity (although there was consensus to require QPQs at nomination). So no, there's no requirement to wait until the nomination you reviewed is promoted/rejected for a QPQ to be considered valid. JuniperChill (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent advice

There is some very helpful advice from AirshipJungleman29 about best practice for hooks here. We might want to integrate some of this into DYK guidelines. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of it is here already; many people just don't read. I'd prefer not to codify what isn't—my subjective interpretation of the most subjective criterion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your call. I'll just highlight one gem here: "avoid promoting long hooks on boring topics" (for anyone who does actually read). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

PS: CFR 1910 has no "part 42". The sign used to illustrate WP:CREEP (adjacent to WP:NOTCREEP) appears to be gag – although it's a fabulous fake, especially if it was photographed in the wild by an unwitting punter. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

See image description. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:5X

Starting to add contents from November 16, 2025, I almost finished 333 (Tinashe album) article now but I'm still not sure how much the article has been expanded. Does this satisfy WP:5X rule? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 11:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The article has appeared at DYK before. My understanding is that an article cannot appear more than once, and I don't see why this would be an exception. If you click on the talk page, under "article milestones", it is recorded there. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This message was left 7 months ago. After sending this, they brought the article to GA and it ran on DYK. To clarify, articles can run again if five years have passed since it appeared on DYK. It is my understanding that this used to be one year but then was raised for arbitrary reasons, after having previously been totally prohibited. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It has never been one year. The one-year thing refers to articles featured on the Main Page as an ITN or OTD blurb; if that happens, they cannot run on DYK within a year of their ITN/OTD run. The "former DYK articles can run again" rule is relatively new, and ever since it was implemented it's always been five years. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction! Looking through the WT:DYK archives, I'm pretty sure I misremembered a suggestion to change it after one year to one year as it formerly being one year. speaking of WT:DYK... is there a reason that this talk page doesn't redirect there? WT:DYK has much higher traffic and is already a venue to discuss the guidelines, so discussion would be centralized and camilasdandelions wouldn't have only got a response seven months after the fact 1brianm7 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Question about appropriateness

Hey all. I'd like to nominate two recent GAs of mine, Load (album) and Reload (Metallica album), as I think the cover artworks are interesting enough for DYKs, but I'm wondering if they are appropriate to appear on the main page. Both albums have cover artworks that are abstract paintings by the artist Andres Serrano. Load was created by mixing blood and his own semen, while Reload was created by mixing blood and his own urine. Are these appropriate blurbs to appear on the main page? I don't nominate DYKs often so apologies if this is a dumb question. Thanks. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

No. We don't show fair use images on the main page. Schwede66 20:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean have the artworks themselves appear, I meant the blurbs. Like is it appropriate or ok to have the words "semen" or "urine" appear on the main page? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

my hunch is yes, it'd be okay. it's certainly not allowed to prevent certain words from reaching the Main Page (although we have taken unkindly to people who have repeatedly tried to get highly offensive content on the Main Page). WP:DYKGRAT says that "excessively sensational or gratuitous should be rejected", but I wouldn't put those hooks under that clause, artworks get leeway. you might encounter some resistance, but i wouldn't say the hooks are categorically not allowed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:NEW

I feel stupid for asking this question, but would an article being promoted to FA, entirely skipping GA, still not pass for WP:NEW? 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 23:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The reason why an article being promoted to FA doesn't count as new for DYK purposes is because there's the option for FAs to appear on the main page via WP:TFA, rather than DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding examples of uninteresting hooks to DYKINT

Today, one of the hooks is "... that the board game Endeavor: Deep Sea, in which players lead a group of marine-life specialists, won the industry Connoisseurs' Game of the Year award?" (CC @JaumeBG, @Piotrus, @AirshipJungleman29) This is simply not "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic". One board game is always going to win the Game of the Year award. I think one way to fix this issue might be to add a list of examples of hooks that are not interesting under DYKINT. Or, alternatively, if DYK regulars want to accept hooks like this, DYKINT should be changed or abolished. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

list of examples of hooks that are not interesting We have WP:DYKSTATS which mostly does the job.--Launchballer 16:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

We should not expect DYK reviewers to look through DYKSTATS to determine what "interesting" means. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't engage much with DYK. I would think that the stats are only a partial proxy for how effective the hook is. Some topics are just more popular than others and likely get clicks regardless. Not to say the hook is unimportant. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Right. I think the person going to Wikipedia's main page and looking at DYK (as opposed to someone just googling something and clicking through to an individual article), is probably more likely to find interest in boardgames than the average person. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, the hook "... that a board game won the Game of the Year award?" is not interesting, as is always the case when someone creates reductionist strawmans to criticise the potential interest of a hook. We can do the same for each other hook currently on the main page Voorts: perhaps you'd like to criticise "... that different people have lived in a building", or " ... that a guy did some travelling"? Perhaps you feel those truncations miss out the interesting bit of the hook? Then why do you do exactly the same with the hook you've chosen to criticise? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If I had written an article about a board game and the most interesting thing I could find about it is that it won an award, I wouldn't have nominated it at DYK because that fact is not "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic". If that's not the DYK standard in practice, we should change it. If it is, we should clarify that hooks like "X won an annual award" doesn't meet that standard. I'm indifferent as to which path we take. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Very cool. Now would you mind reading my comment? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I read your comment and I've explained my opinion. I do not believe that that hook is either "unusual" or "intriguing", which is what the first sentence of DYKINT says that hooks should be, because I do not believe that any hook in the format "X, defined as Y, won award Z" is "unusual" or "intriguing". I'm not sure how my opinion is reductionist or a strawman. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You have a fair point, but I'll stress it is subjective. I, for example, find such hooks interesting as I am interested not just in board games but in awards, and I find it insightful to both learn and teach others that some weird stuff out there has its own awards. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, because it truncates a hook whose interest comes from the interaction of three clauses into caricatures designed to be as uninteresting as possible. For me, it is very unusual that a board game centred around a topic I have never considered suitable for board-gaming won a board game of the year award. If I were to sum that conclusion in one word it would be "intriguing". As I am a reader with no special knowledge or interest in the topic, I hope my opinion counts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

And from the statistics, if we exclude the image hook (which nearly always performs best) we can see that it was clicked on more than two other hooks in the set, and more than nine of the 23 hooks that have run so far this month. So personally, if I was targetin uninteresting hooks, I think this would be pretty far down the list. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you are stretching the definitions of the words "unusual" and "intriguing" beyond their ordinary meaning and that most people would not find a mundane occurrence (a board game winning an award) to be either of those things, notwithstanding the topic of the borad game. The fact that a bunch of people clicked on it may mean that people reading Wikipedia and looking at DYK are interested in board games generally, not the particular fact highlighted in the hook. Speaking more generally, whether a hook meets DYKINT is not correlated with clicks and vice versa. As I said when I opened this thread, I'm indifferent to whether these hooks should be accepted, but if they should, then we should probably not be using language that indicates a hook fact needs to be out-of-the-ordinary. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I think your standards for an unusual or intriguing statement are so high as to be borderline unworkable, but it’s clear we’re not going to agree. It might, however, help for you to realise that I and at least one other in this thread don’t consider the winning of the award to be the most interesting part of the hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Pardon my question, but why is the part that you're pointing to as interesting not a WP:DYKFIC issue? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: I had the same thought, and probably would agree with blocking the hook on that basis. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Because it’s not the whole part of the hook, and the rest of it is made more interesting by the fictional context. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, forget it; this discussion is an excellent reminder of why I stopped participating in this thankless process, and I’ll bookmark it if I ever need a reminder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

How would you like other editors to respond to this comment? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

... however they want? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I should probably disclose that you just inspired me to create WP:DYKFIC (which was a redlink when you posted). Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The guideline itself sets a high bar! If everything can be unusual or intriguing (including, in this case apparently, the topic of the article subject), then everything is unusual or intriguing. If consensus is that just a part of the hook needs to say something "interesting" then why don't we just say that? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

As for the other hooks today, I think some of them meet the standard, others don't. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It's subjective. I think that the very existence of Connoisseurs' Game of the Year award for board games is interesting for some. YMMV but I find the hook interesting not just for board game fans but for layman.

In recent years I've seen too much stress on subjective interseting, with hooks I and others found interesting criticzed and sometimes even vetoed by yet others. This is not a good trend, as I feel some folks define interesting as "intersting to me" and make writing hooks and nominating stuff for DYK less fun than it used to be, as we have to worry not about general interest but matching the tasts of a small group of picky reviewers here. Not cool, folks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

DYKINT does not just say that a hook has to be "interesting". It says that a hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic (emphasis in original). voorts (talk/contributions) 15:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

In fact, the word "interesting" doesn't appear in DYKINT at all. It's a holdover of what the guidline used to be. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Potato potato; it's just a wordy explanation of what we mean by interesting. So to be clear, yes, the hook you criticized IMHO can perfectly be "perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is a game winning an annual award "unusual" or "intriguing"? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Because most games don't win annual awards. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes but one always does. That does not make the winning of the word "unusual" or "intriguing". voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I consider your argument to be partially flawed because the main purpose of an award is to single out something, and saying something won an award can get people wondering why. Here's an example. Except during war or other exceptional circumstances, one person wins a Nobel Peace Prize each year. Suppose that John Doe wins a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to resolve ongoing armed conflicts. Under your standard, does Doe winning the award not qualify as "unusual" or "intriguing" because someone always wins a Nobel Peace Prize each year? I can see the argument for it not being "unusual", because there's one awarded every year, but not for "intriguing", as seeing "X won the annual award in Y" makes me want to look into what exactly is special about X. Yes, winning annual awards is not unusual because said awards recur regularly by definition, but that doesn't preclude winning an annual award from being intriguing.

Of course, this is all subjective and feel free to disagree with my opinion. I just wanted to show that "X wins Y" can be suitable for DYK because it can satisfy "intriguing" while failing to be "unusual". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Because the very fact that such a award exist is unusual or interesting, as well as the fact that board games have their own award ecosystem (most people don't know anything about them, and view board games through lenses of junk titles like Monopoly). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Suppose that John Doe wins a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to resolve ongoing armed conflicts. Under your standard, does Doe winning the award not qualify as "unusual" or "intriguing" because someone always wins a Nobel Peace Prize each year? Yes. Someone winning the Nobel Peace Prize for trying to resolve an ongoing armed conflict is not unusual or intriguing; it's the purpose of the award.

but not for "intriguing", as seeing "X won the annual award in Y" makes me want to look into what exactly is special about X. By this logic, any person winning any award is "intriguing" because a reader might want to know what they won the award for. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I recently wrote the article Terry Leonard. He won a lifetime achievement award for his work in film stunts. Is "... that Terry Leonard won a lifetime achievement award for his stunt work?" intriguing? If not, how is that reasonably distinguihsable from the Nobel Prize example? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is intriguing to me at least, because I did not know who Terry Leonard is, what he does, and how he won the award. That's the point of "did you know?": pointing out lesser-known things for the purpose of educating the reader.

Again, all subjective. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The DYKINT requirement is about the hook not the article topic. You are conflating the two. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles about topics or people that are interesting, but not every fact about that topic/person is going to be "intriguing" or "unusual". If the standard were "is the article topic interesting?" then the hook could be "did you know that Terry Leonard is a stuntman?" voorts (talk/contributions) 21:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The article topic and the hook should be intriguing, because otherwise you could take a mundane fact like "the sky is blue" and turn it into something like "did you know that the atmosphere of a terrestrial planet with a high level of oxygen most strongly reflects electromagnetic radiation with a length between 450 and 475 nanometers?" SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You're both right to an extent. Some topics, like stuntmen, are inherently pretty intriguing and thus lend themselves to successful hooks where the same form would be mundane for most other topics. But even then, shouldn't we spice it up a bit? 'John Doe won a lifetime achievement award for performing over 500 movie stunts' is better than 'John Doe won the ABC Lifetime Achievement award for stunts in 2015'. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Both of those are still mundane. The stuntman who is 40 years old and has done 20 stunts across a 20 year career obviously isn't going to win a lifetime achievement award. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The article topic does not have to be intriging or unusual, and the guideline doesn't say that they have to be. Boring or mundane people can do unusual or intriguing things that would generate a good hook. Unusual or intriguing people (like stuntman) can do things that are boring or mundane for their work. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

But now suppose that John Doe was one of the government leaders responsible for starting the war and ended up regretting his decisions; hence his decision to sabotage his country's cause. Does he really deserve to win an award for stopping a war that he started? Why did he reverse course? Can he be considered a traitor? Was the award politically motivated?

"X wins Y award" is not automatically boring or mundane just because Y award recurs regularly. It depends immensely on context and background. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

It depends immensely on context and background. Right, this is the key. The mere fact of winning most awards is not intriguing but the circumstances surrounding a particular win may be. A warmonger winning the Nobel Peace Prize is both unusual and intriguing. Another example that *might* qualify as intriguing is someone winning the Best New Artist Grammy many years into their career. To the average reader unfamiliar with the criteria for this category, that is likely to come as a surprise. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that both of those would be "unusual" and "intriguing" facts about those people, but I also think that the majority of hooks including "X won Y" will not be either. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, "X won Y" is no good, absent some other hooky detail. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

By this logic, any person winning any award is "intriguing" because a reader might want to know what they won the award for. That is correct. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course, the point of DYK is to increase awareness of lesser-known facts/knowledge, so my first example is a bit of a strawman. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Well that's clearly not the standard of DYKINT, which again, is about the wording of the hook being "intriguing" or "unusual" not the article subject itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Voorts, your argument is essentially "I personally don't think this hook is interesting, so we should not require hooks to be interesting". That doesn't work, because a hook being "interesting" is entirely subjective. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I find it pretty interesting, it made me want to find out more about the game. I think you're under the impression that the interesting part is the specific award, not "huh, I wonder what a game about marine research is like." Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Did you know and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that it would be a profoundly bad idea to weaken or abolish DYKINT based on disagreement over whether a hook fits its letter or not. That would be like someone trying to change NPOV because they disagree with the results of an NPOV RfC. Maybe people just found the premise of the game to be interesting, not the fact that it won an award. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't meant to discourage scrutiny of hooks based on DYKINT – that's a good thing and people should do it much, much more (particularly before a hook goes live). But disagreeing with how a principle is applied by other people is not the same as disagreeing with the principle itself. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

To respond to some of the above:

• I think that it would be a profoundly bad idea to weaken or abolish DYKINT based on disagreement over whether a hook fits its letter or not. I am not advocating for that based on a single hook. I am using this hook as an example.
• Maybe people just found the premise of the game to be interesting, not the fact that it won an award./I think you're under the impression that the interesting part is the specific award, not "huh, I wonder what a game about marine research is like."/a hook being "interesting" is entirely subjective. The first sentence of DYKINT says: "The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic" (emphasis in original). DYKINT does not use the word interesting, at all. It also doesn't say that the topic itself needs to be interesting, nor does it say that part of the hook needs to be about an interesting topic. One can have an "interesting" hook about a boring topic, like tax returns, and a boring hook about an interesting topic.

voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Are these hooks, which are structurally the same as the hook under consideration, "unusual" or "intriguing":

• that author, who writes novels about [very odd topic], won the Nobel Prize in Literature?
• that Book, about [very intriguing topic], has been named one of the greatest works of English literature?
• that Documentary, about [the life of really interesting dude], debuted to critical acclaim?

voorts (talk/contributions) 19:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

#1 would be objectively interesting to most people; #2's issue is not DYKINT (it would be interesting depending on how it is written) but rather other guidelines like DYKHOOKCITE (as a superlative hook, it would need strong sourcing), as well as perhaps WIKIVOICE; #3 is probably not unless you say why it was acclaimed.

As for the original concern about what hooks are generally seen as uninteresting, one common class is "Person X performed Role Y" hooks, and this one is actually backed up by DYKSTATS. Science-related hooks often struggle especially if they use specialist terminology. Hooks about works of fiction tend to do badly if they rely on in-fandom terms or knowledge (my own Saori Ōnishi hook from years ago is one I still have deep regrets about and I would have never proposed that wording today). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

would be objectively interesting to most people That wasn't my question. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

For DYK purposes, "interesting" and "intriguing" are functionally equivalent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The word "intriguing" means something more than merely "interesting". If what we actually mean is interesting, the guideline should say that. If we in fact mean something more than interesting, then we should clarify that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, unusual or intriguing is a much higher bar. I suppose it is interesting that a particular book or board game won a prestigious award but it is also trivial since awards are given out every year. Considering all the big awards out there, I don't think these are good hooks. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

1. 1 is virtually identical to the hook in question; the only difference is that the medium and prize have been madlibbed out.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Who said anything about boring or interesting topics? also, "uninteresting" was the word you used in the header of this thread.

It seems to me like we have the same goal, which is to encourage more intriguing DYK hooks. I think abolishing or weakening DYKINT would do the exact opposite of that, but I've long thought that we need some structural changes to encourage onlookers to really hold regulars' and nominators' feet to the fire on it. Do you (or does anyone else) have any suggestions on how to encourage better, more thorough application of DYKINT? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

My proposal was to include a list of things that are generally neither "intriguing" nor "unusual", such as "X won Y annual award", "X person starred in Y", "X song was debuted by Y", etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The obvious solution would be for editors to be more willing to reject nominations on interestingness/intriguingness grounds, but considering nominator pushback is the norm when that happens, it would require a culture change. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with voorts's assessment that the board game award example does not come close to qualifying as unusual or intriguing ("interesting"). This is obviously subjective but I think editors saying otherwise are being rather obtuse. If you have a standing interest in the subject area then the hook isn't really for you. I don't know that a handful of examples will improve assessment or resolve disputes, given the inherent subjectiveness and infinite possible good and bad hooks. Maybe something about statements that are mundane, trivial, or would be obvious to anyone remotely familiar with the subject don't make for good hooks. That seems rather obvious but here we are. Although it's not clear to me if this is a recurring problem/topic of disputes or if the Endeavor: Deep Sea example is an outlier. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

"If you have a standing interest in the subject area then the hook isn't really for you." I have and I find the hook interesting. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, as you stated earlier, you find it interesting as [you are] interested not just in board games but in awards. And hooks are aimed at attracting readers readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic. It's nice that hooks also attract readers already interested in the subject area but the test is not whether those readers find it interesting. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

And I also am interested in random stuff I have no special interest in, and I expect others find it interesting too. Shrug. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Omnia mirari etiam tritissima

There were 8 hooks in that set and the hook in question placed #5 with 5,640 views which seems ok. The real snoozer in that set for me was ... that Rochdale v York City in April 2026 was the first time that a single English football league match was a title-decider since Liverpool faced Arsenal in May 1989? and I'm not surprised to see that it placed last.

Per de gustibus non est disputandum, the taste of our readers for such hooks is uncertain and so we should just run them and judge by results. Trying to predict what is or isn't interesting to other people is pointless guesswork.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree to an extent that there's a limit to how strictly we can define or predict what will make a good hook, but shouldn't we look for patterns in the data and learn from experience where we can? @Narutolovehinata5 mentioned recurring themes that produce ineffective hooks for fiction and science topics, respectively. Perhaps a few descriptive examples like those would provide useful guidance. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

the taste of our readers for such hooks is uncertain and so we should just run them and judge by results. Trying to predict what is or isn't interesting to other people is pointless guesswork. We have a guideline that says hooks need to be "unusual" or "intriguing". If the goal were just to put articles in front of readers so they can find something interesting to them, we could just list 8 articles that meet the DYK criteria without hooks and let readers find things that interest them. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The guideline is a foolish innovation which should be deprecated. DYK worked fine before because there is an inherent incentive to make hooks interesting so that the articles attract more readers. The only perverse case was Gerda who marched to the beat of a different drummer but we should have room for such good faith creative differences.

Now that the guideline exists, the main consequence is silly time-wasting debates like this one. This is not an improvement.

Andrew🐉(talk) 22:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The new guideline exists precisely because the original guideline caused disagreements about what counted as "interesting to a broad audience", or even how "broad audience" was supposed to be defined. The current guidelines, in theory, are supposed to be narrower; if anything, bad hooks getting through have more to do with the rule not being properly applied (i.e. people ignore the "no special knowledge" part) rather than the rule itself being flawed. It's not perfect, of course, but the wording came from experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ha. Agreed, @Andrew Davidson. I'd fully support an RfC vote on getting rid of this, as I said, this is just an annoying way to let some DYK admins impose their criteria on what they find interesting (unusual, whatever). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also support an RFC to remove INT, as it has been change far beyond the original purpose and has no objective measures that could ever informally be applied. It also is based on whole sale fallacy, that somehow a "boring" hook will actively cause harm (never defined) to Wikipedia as a whole, and thus must be crusaded against as hard as possible. leading the to DYK talk archives overflowing with mountains of wasted prose about if a hook is "interesting enough!".--Kevmin § 16:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Good stats. I find that (soccer) hook boring, but that is also because I don't care for soccer, and I do think it might be ok not only for soccer fans but for folks intrigued by the jargon. That said, it's not a great hook, but I wouldn't veto that one either. Still, it's "funny" that we are discussing the 5th most popular hook out of 8th. This is all obviously subjective - the nom, I wager, finds board games less interesting then soccer, so they zeroed in on the board game hook. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I think its far beyond time that INT, as the only "rule" based on a undefinable set of three subjective words and an unfulfillable target should be depreciated. Contrary to several assertions further up. the rule has been highly disputed since it was first added as a purported filter to prevent mundane or highly obvious hooks such as "...that the sky is blue?", While it has morphed in purported working and purpose over the past half decade, the controversy around it has simply grown deeper and the volume of time sunk around it only gotten bigger. The three words used as direction "Interesting, unusual, intriguing" are all subjective things that the average 5 million daily main page viewers will process and experience differently. Any suggestion that a group of 4-8 active queue ad prep builder can magically know what 5 million people will click and not click is pure Crystal balling. On the other side of the argument defending its use is the constant slow burn fear mongering of a "boring hook", a tern NEVER actually part of the original rules meaning, but a bogeyman now added as justification without supporting data. Its the implication that a single boring sentence fragment of under 200 characters and below the digital fold will in some way be irreparably harmful to Wikipedia as a whole. A highly absurd notion when fully looked at in the light. Oh and before someone brings up MP:ERRORS, ones personal disinterest does not make a hook an error violation.--Kevmin § 16:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Shit or get off the pot Kevmin, you have been told to open an RfC many times now.--Launchballer 16:24, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

language Launchballer, I'm not the one that brought up the conversation this time, and its clear that opinions are not all positive around the subject. Bullying will not get you what you think it will.--Kevmin § 16:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from starting an RfC about phasing out DYKINT. Multiple editors over the years have suggested you to do it, considering your strong opposition to the guideline. If you do not like the rule, why have you not started the RFC yet? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, that is a common metaphor and not an uncivil comment. That being said, if you do want DYKINT to be abolished, you are free to open an RfC about it. If you never actually ask, nothing is going to happen. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

uncommon metaphor and still needlessly vulgar.--Kevmin § 19:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Look, we have an excess of hooks to begin with. I think we need to make peace with the fact that many articles will not result in interesting hooks, and strengthen DYKINT so that more hooks will be failed under it. If we rejected ~1/5 hooks on interestingness grounds (and I'd say that's about the proportion of hooks which run that are frankly boring), we could avoid doing 12 hour sets and we could probably speed up QPQs; since I know that I don't want to fail a boring hook for my QPQ, because it has a high chance of starting a long argument that will require me to check back on every once in a while! I don't think I'm alone on that. If we normalized failing on interestingness grounds, I think we would work through the backlog quite a bit quicker. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  The primary issue is culture. The more "objective" guidelines are clear. If you fail them, it's a clear yes or no; either it passes, or you give more time to address if not fail. The interestingness guideline is subjective: what is interesting to one person may not be to another, and vice-versa. This often leads to interestingness judgement calls being questioned either by the nominator or by another editor. Plus, nominators usually don't like being told their hooks are uninteresting, and reviewers and other DYK regulars often hold back to avoid hurting feelings.

  The nuclear option of abolishing DYKINT entirely is there, but it would likely do more harm than good: as you said, we already have more nominations than we can reasonably process, and getting rid of DYKINT would exacerbate that. We need some standards, because otherwise DYK would just be a free-for-all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  As can be seen from this discussion, people are taking a capacious reading of the words "intriguing" and "unusual" and aplying it to the article subject, rather than hooks. If we're going to strengthen anything, it would need to be those aspects of the guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is inherent subjectivity of what is interesting. Looking at the current queue, I find the following boring and I expect many would likewise shrug for "... that Bad Bunny was the first Spanish-language Latino solo artist to headline a Super Bowl halftime show?" or "that American actress Ruby Rose Turner debuted as a dancer on the TV show Sábado Gigante at the age of seven?" as well as "that the co-creator of the Sam & Max comic series voices a character in its VR game adaptation?". YMMV, sure, but if I was reviewing these I quite well might have raised a DYKINTEREST and asked for a hook I find more interesting. The process is very, very random IMHO and it's not good. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I was looking at today's set too. The first two hooks didn't work for me because they were both firsts based on identity politics and such hooks are a cliché at DYK. The hooks I liked most were Annie Jane and Norman Balon which seemed more unusual and more to my taste.

  One issue is that being unusual is a relative concept which depends upon the general background. A first might seem unusual in isolation but not if there are lots of other similar hooks too. So, the concept is not certain or stable because it depends on the circumstances.

  The real problem seems to be that DYK is overloaded and different solution(s) should be found. Perhaps veteran editors like Piotrus who have over 100 DYKs should be given stretch goals. Perhaps their DYKs should be required to be GA? Perhaps they should be encouraged to step up to TFA which seems to be quite short of good articles.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson I gave up on FA long ago when people were nitpicking what I consider some minor language issues or reference formatting. And I got demotivated with GAs due to WikiCup which made me write DA on pl wiki more - maybe one year I'll translate dozens from pl wiki and try to have a chance in the Cup :P DYKs are low enough effort for me to still be fun. (This comment is semi-serious but I don't think chasing away experienced DYK creators is a good idea, it will result in lower quality content and in my case, for example, may make me spend even less time on en wiki...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  My experience is somewhat similar. I'm a 20 year veteran and have created over a thousand articles with a cumulative readership of over 100 million views. I have put over a hundred of them through DYK but mostly can't be bothered with it now because the nitpicking and second-guessing is so vexatious.

  The FA process seems even worse and my impression is that that project is moribund now. Few editors seem willing to brave it and so it fails to produce even the one article per day that it requires. The articles that now appear as TFA seem to be just gaming its system as they are often meagre accounts of topics which are barely notable.

  So, per perfect is the enemy of good, the main page processes should be reinvigorated by pushing back on the nitpickers and nay-sayers. They should be made more open and accessible so that editors like us are encouraged to use them by creating more content.

  But, instead, what we have is a proposal to put one article per week on the main page as an Article for Improvement. This is so pitiful that it shows that the whole main page scheme needs a rethink. DYK should lead this as it's the one section that is still vigorous and vibrant. For all its flaws, DYK works and so needs expanding rather than being constricted and pushed down.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Objective test The OP's proposal is to list some examples of hooks that were not interesting. As the judgement is subjective, this is best done empirically using the stats which are already used to rate and score the performance of hooks. So, as well as listing the hooks which did exceptionally well, we should list the hooks which did exceptionally poorly. The board game example was not exceptional because its performance was middling – neither exceptionally bad nor exceptionally good.

My recollection is that Gerda's hooks were objectively poor because they typically attracted less than a thousand views. This then is a practical and objective threshold which warrants exemplary action. Looking at the latest archive for weak hooks, the worst I've found so far was:

• ... that Jacqueline Wilson wrote a fourth novel in her Hetty Feather series despite only planning to write a trilogy?

This only got 1,825 views and I suppose that's because it's a "fourth" not a "first" and that sounds feeble. But it still got more than a thousand views and so it's not bad enough to be worth citing as an example.

Is there an existing or easy way to list hooks which scored less than a thousand?

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at WP:DYKSTATS, I see that the Monthly summaries have a column which gives the worst performer each month. This shows that the Jacqueline Wilson novel is the current worst performer for July and so I am pleased to find that I could smell this stinker by inspection. The next job is to list the hooks which were the worst performers in other months. The authors of these hooks should be awarded a wooden spoon so that they feel some pressure to raise their game. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The monthly summary for June has the following as the lowest:

• ... that Krunal Pandya was named the player of the match in the 2025 Indian Premier League final, becoming the first cricketer to win the award in two IPL finals?

The trouble is that it actually got 3,947 views on the day. But it got 9,004 views on the previous day. That seems to be because it's an annual event and the 2026 event happened then which generated views for this previous year's event. So, the statistic has been adjusted to allow for natural views not arising from DYK and that hurt this case badly.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Not surprised, that's a pretty boring hook, I can hardly imagine anyone being interested in it. And so this kind of stuff makes it through, but much better hooks are criticized. Ugh. That said, the reviewer @Panamitsu explicity called it interesting, and per YMMV, I guess some folks might. Apparently veteran DYK admin @AirshipJungleman29 also found it fine, as they promoted it. Shrug again, YMMV n-th time. The fact that we disagree on this (AirshipJungleman29 called the board game hook above uninteresting, with which I disagree) just proves the entire system is pointless and subjective to an unsustainable degree. Frankly, we would be better of training an AI on the monthly views dataset and seeing what it opines, I'd rather trust a trained LLM than a random editor (including myself) on what is or isn't interesting for the "general reader". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

For that book hook, I do think that it's interesting that an author wrote a book that they did not originally plan to write. I suspect that the lack of page views is not because of the lack of interest in the fact itself, but instead a lack of interest in the author or the book series. If it was "... that J. K. Rowling wrote a fourth novel in her Harry Potter series despite only planning to write a trilogy?", it would get far more views. Panamitsu (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I also wonder if the issue could have been the wording. I would have shortened that hook into something like " ... that the novel Diamond was the fourth book in what was supposed to be a trilogy?" Neither the series nor the author may be that well-known to most readers, so maybe the extra names also scared off people. Speaking of shortening, from experience, longer hooks sometimes underperform from expectations, but it's common for nominators to object to hook shortening even when encouraged by DYKTRIM. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not unusual for authors to crank out more of the same. They are traditionally called pot-boilers. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Piotrus, I’m not taking part in this discussion anymore, but since you pinged me I might as well clarify that I found the board game hook very interesting (rather obviously since I promoted it), and I can’t see anywhere in this discussion I implied differently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 My apologies for misreading your comment above (I saw "the hook "... that a board game won the Game of the Year award?" is not interesting" and did not read your full post in detail, my bad). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Time for a discussion of INT?

Since I was asked for more explanation on why, as a constant voice against DYK:INT, I haven't actually started a RFC on it, here is my initial reply to @Narutolovehinata5: at my talk page:

• Hey Kevmin, I would just like to ask. You've stated multiple times your opposition to DYKINT and how you would rather see it abolished. I've been wondering why you haven't started an RfC yet on phasing out DYKINT, and would like to know. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Its pretty simple really, everyone has areas of strength and weakness in abilities. I'm good at researching and writing articles, I have very little experience crafting well formatted, neutrally positioned, and soundly positioned RFCs, thus I know one I started would likely not preform at the optimum for a good RFC to produce true results. I will continue to note when INT is failing out as the only rule based entirely on subjective "personal vibes" rule, and as seen in the recent discussion on the rules talk, there are others who also see the problems with asserting objective universal meaning that a high majority of humans will all agree on for the words "unusual" and "intriguing", the two terns actually in the guideline now, or the more frequently invoked by now false "interesting". To be honest the current wording is even more obtuse in is implication for a 5 million page view audience than the original wording was likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest is just as unobtainable in any objective way as the original Did_You_Know#Aims_and_objectives. As the 2022 Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archived wording RFC noted the votes were initially very close to even, with the current wording being given as the only other option in the end over the options to loosen.--Kevmin § 19:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Its clear, from looking at this discussion, looking at the DYK archives for the past 2 years, and from reading through the 2022 RFC that both the change in wording implemented in 2022, and the fuller premise of INT should be revisited. The 2022 change has essentially created even more of a gray zone for interpretation, swapping the single subjective "interesting" with a blatant synonym "intriguing" and adding the equally subjective and non-definable "unusual". We also moved the goal post from "broad audience" (already a problem) to "readers with no special knowledge or interest". How is that group identified when the main page has an average 24 hour page view count of 5 million hits spanning the globe, but the choice of all 5 million comes down to the vibe of between 3-5 singular people looking at it from their innate biases and preferences.

I am NOT a good RFC writer like other editors @WhatamIdoing: comes to mind, but it seems to me that the absolute time sink that INT has become, with absolutely no positive purpose other then "clicks must be massive!!!! or the whole of wikipedia will ?something?", is actively burning through editors willing to help the review, prepping and queueing. INT is in many ways now being used contrary to the overall purpose and WP:5 pillars objectives of Wikipedia as a whole, and has been made into a club to gatekeep the main page from content that validly deserves time there based on its very existence on WP in the first place. WP and the 5 pillars say NOTHING at all about a topic needing to meet a threshold volume of "interest" to stay, only that the rules such as notability and neutrality are met.--Kevmin § 19:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC) @Andrew Davidson, Voorts, Launchballer, Piotrus, AirshipJungleman29, Myceteae, GreenLipstickLesbian, and SuperPianoMan9167: @Gnomingstuff, Theleekycauldron, Accessedgrant, Panamitsu, Generalissima, and Epicgenius:

I support creating an RfC on this, but I have little prior experience with doing this. Please ping me (and best, everone else who commented here) when (if) such an RfC is done; I can also offer comments on a pre-launch draft of one if desired. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The above pings did not work because they were not followed by a new signature, but I got an alert about @Piotrus's comment since I am subscribed to this discussion. Pinging @Andrew Davidson, Voorts, Launchballer, Piotrus, AirshipJungleman29, Myceteae, GreenLipstickLesbian, and SuperPianoMan9167: @Gnomingstuff, Theleekycauldron, Accessedgrant, Panamitsu, Generalissima, and Epicgenius to complete @Kevmin's (I think) intentions. As for an RFC, I think the precise question needs more work. I'm have next to no DYK experience and came to this discussion as an otherwise uninvolved editor who saw a notice at Village Pump (IIRC). My sense from participating in this discussion here is that there is an issue but I'm not sure how I'd characterize it or what the fix should be. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to ping me, I don't have anything else to contribute to this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a fairly simple RfC Kevmin; something like this would be good enough.

Should the WP:DYKINT requirement ("The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic.") be removed from the DYK guidelines?

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This RfC should happen, and if it does my vote will be strong support. Sddarealone (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NEW - Will take a couple of weeks to add cites

I created List of recovering species several days ago. Wrote a draft of the prose in the first day or two; now going thru it and researching citations for each sentence, and copy-editing ... which might take a couple of weeks. Should I nominate it for DYK now, before the citations are completed? Or can I wait until the citations are completed? I'd prefer to wait so I'm positive the material is 100% supported by RS's, but I don't want to miss out on the "new-ness" deadline for DYK. Noleander (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd nominate now and leave a note.--Launchballer 14:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Noleander (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Request to withdraw my DYK nom

It has been over 50 days that my DYK nomination is yet to conclude and with six or more hooks proposed, all came short or are uninteresting per WP:DYKINT. If it's salvageable, anyone can review the hooks further or by today I would like to withdraw the nom as its nominator. Sddarealone (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone A quick glance at your nom suggests this is part of the growing problem with DYKINT (look just two threads up). I find most of the hooks there perfectly fine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The great Piotrus just replied :) Coming back to the reply, exactly. I'm a very patient person but something about DYKs in general didn't seem right and in my opinion, it has to be DYKINT. I'm making this thread to know if there's a process of DYK withdrawal by self or by others because I didn't see any withdrawn DYKs here (ok there's four). Not to mention, this DYK discouraged me from further nominating anymore DYKs on the GAs that I worked with.

An alternative would be to decide the above nom today as I don't want it to be delayed any further. Sddarealone (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

DYK's used to be fun. I've almost a 1,000, and I've been here for over a decade. But in the last 2-3 years something started to get wrong here. Too much bureaucratic creep, and I think the DYKINT is partly to blame. The basis are good - nominator should try to propose interesting hooks. We don't want "did you know that John Smith was born, lived and died". But increasingly there are demands that a hook should be very interesting; and worse, what interesting is decided subjectively by different reviewers, increasingly leading to cases where if you write two similar articles with similar hooks, you can see one accepted, and another criticized. I agree it is increasingly annoying. If DYKINT is not pulled, after I hit my 1000 hooks (I think I am very close) I may take a holiday from DYKing on en wiki :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Its great that you enjoyed doing DYKs here and also thanks for leaving your comments in the nom. I respected you as an editor a lot (after reading your monologue on that infamous Polish holocaust controversy) back when I joined here in April 2026, and I still do. You seem to be one of the only editors who cared about my pending nom here. Not much time is left for tomorrow to come in UTC. But I have made up my mind and I want to withdraw my current DYK nom. Anyway, it's a pointless pursuit now. Sddarealone (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)