Talk:Libriomancer

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 09:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Libriomancer is not the first Jim C. Hines novel to feature Smudge the fire-spider?

• • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This was moved to mainspace by an AFC reviewer but I'm not sure how to indicate that. This is my first nom, so sorry if I should have done that differently.

NovaHyperion (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC).

• Regrettably, the hook as currently written may not be suitable for DYK. Firstly, the hook might fall afoul of WP:DYKFICTION, since a hook about a work of fiction must have a real-world connection. Right now, it seems to be a borderline pass at best. The second is that the hook may not meet WP:DYKINT, as if a reader is not familiar with Hines or the character Smudge, the hook may be less appealing. A new hook is probably needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: Okay, thanks for the notes. This is my first time at DYK, so I appreciate getting some feedback. I've proposed some alts below.

ALT1: ... that the short story Libriomancer is based on features a fire-spider from one of Jim C. Hines's other works?

ALT2: ... that an editor asked Jim C. Hines to write a short story based on one of his other novels, which turned into Libriomancer?

ALT3: ... that K.G. McAbee says Libriomancer shows Jim C. Hines's "love of sheer and unadulterated storytelling"?

I'm trying to focus on the fact that it was a part of the development of the story as opposed to part of the story itself, and while it is a fictional element I think the inclusion of a "fire-spider" is intriguing enough, but I've included ALT3 as an option if I'm not threading these needles correctly. NovaHyperion (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

ALT1 and ALT2 are better on the DYKFICTION front, but probably less so from a DYKINT perspective since they are reliant on knowing who Hines is. ALT3 is slightly better but probably still not enough to pass DYKINT: it requires knowing who McAbee is, and quote hooks have underperformed among our readers in the past. To be honest, after a quick look at the article, I'm not actually sure if it has any material that would work as a hook. If you need any advice, I suggest you read WP:DYKINT first; I'm happy to give more advice if needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I read both WP:DYKINT and WP:DYKFICTION before trying to write any of these hooks (and did wonder if the first suggestion was a little borderline, but I wasn't confident enough either way). To me, these are interesting and something that would appeal to a wide audience, but I recognize that is somewhat subjective.

I'm a little confused how it is less interesting if someone does not know who Hines is, or how it's in any way reliant on that fact; he's a noteable author (with some decent name recognition, though far from famous), and he's the author of the book and the connection between him and the bolded article is clear in both places. Replacing his name with "the author" or some such strikes me as unnecessary obfuscation of an obvious and non-controversial fact, though if you feel something like that would work better I would be fine with that. I have taken a stab at this rewording based on that advice.

ALT2b: ... that Libriomancer began as a short story when the editor encouraged the author to bring a character from a different series into the modern world?

ALT3b: ... that a writer said Libriomancer demonstrated the author's "love of sheer and unadulterated storytelling"?

If ultimately this isn't a viable article for a nomination, I'm fine with that, if a little disappointed (nothing to do with your advice, I hope you can understand how that is a disappointing outcome). As I said, this is my first shot, and I'm sorry if any of the above comes off as rude in any way. If I'm going to make a nomination, I'd want it to have a decent chance at succeeding to avoid wasting either my time or the time of a reviewer, and clearly I am not yet understanding how to enact the criteria. NovaHyperion (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

By coincidence, Theleekycauldron just wrote this essay that gives a simple to understand overview of our interesting guidelines. It may be worth a read if you're still confused. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me restate that I am not trying to be rude, waste your time, direct any of my confusion at you in particular, or be difficult in any way. If you feel that I have gone astray seriously here and my understanding of the criteria is idiosyncratic with the consensus and this is just not a viable nomination, then whatever process needed to close this is fine with me.

Perhaps I am following the letter of the law rather than the spirit, because I am unclear what quote hooks have underperformed among our readers in the past means, with regards to how that is disqualifying from any of the criteria. As a frequent DYK reader, hooks with multiple links appeal to me because I am given the opportunity to learn about more than just the subject of the bolded link. I fail to see how some of the hooks provided in the essay you linked are not also reliant on external knowledge of the subject's creator (Demi Lovato and Fall Out Boy in particular).

I did run a couple of these hooks by people in my real life, and they were interested in knowing more. However, they were also confused by the time I got to a third iteration of a fact worded in a slightly different way, so I may have tainted my own dataset. NovaHyperion (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 and NovaHyperion: What needs doing here?--Launchballer 11:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

We still need to come into an agreement regarding a hook, as well as the nominator to understand our interest guidelines. Note that a full review has yet to be done; I plan to do one tomorrow as it is getting late here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The article was nominated for DYK two days after it was moved to mainspace. It meets length requirements and I did not find any close paraphrasing. As this is the nominator's first nomination, no QPQ is required. The hooks are cited inline, but I am unsure if they meet the interest guidelines (I am leaning towards no). As Launchballer has also commented here, I am inviting them to give a second opinion on hook interest. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @NovaHyperion:, I don't find either ALT2b or ALT3b to meet WP:DYKINT. I also don't see anything in the article that does.--Launchballer 23:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the last ping. I appreciate both your looking at this, sorry that it is not going to work out. As I said above, if this should be closed that's fine with me, but I don't know what that process is as I've never done this before. NovaHyperion^talk 09:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)