- The following discussion 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: promoted by Allen3 talk 09:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Screened porch edit
*... that some people put screens on their porches (pictured) to keep out insects?
- ALT1... that some people fill their screened porches with indoor furniture (pictured)?
- Reviewed: Mihajlo Svilojević
- Comment: I'm amazed that nobody had written an article on this topic before! The black-and-white image goes with the furniture hook, while the color image goes with the insects hook. If you use one of the images, please be sure to use the hook with which it's placed.
Created by Nyttend (talk). Self nominated at 05:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
Everything checks out, with the article being long enough and new enough and both hooks are cited. I don't have a preference for the hook to be used, but the nominator or promoter can pick. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but aren't hooks supposed to be interesting (surprising, intriguing, thought-stimulating, informative...)? What next:
- ...that people use refrigerators to retard food spoilage?
- ...that lawnmowers can be used to keep grass from growing too high?
- ...that schools try to teach children things?
- The bit (in the article) about Gropius is much more appropriate for a hook, I'd say. Sorry, but I'm in a pissy mood just now. EEng (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- With something so basic as a screened porch, we don't need a flashy surprising fact; we need flashy surprising facts for most DYK articles because they're on obscure topics, so we have to say "This thing is obscure, but here's why you should know about it anyway". Not so with screened porches, which are a topic known to many millions of people. See the entry for pencil sharpener at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/February for an example. I've searched the archives without finding anything else that's comparatively routine — presumably because we had articles on most basic topics before DYK even existed, and new articles on common-knowledge topics are extremely rare. Your "proposed" hooks would be appropriate if we didn't have articles on refrigerators, lawnmowers, or schools. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't follow what you're saying except that it seems to be a defense of boring hooks. See ALT2 below.
- With something so basic as a screened porch, we don't need a flashy surprising fact; we need flashy surprising facts for most DYK articles because they're on obscure topics, so we have to say "This thing is obscure, but here's why you should know about it anyway". Not so with screened porches, which are a topic known to many millions of people. See the entry for pencil sharpener at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/February for an example. I've searched the archives without finding anything else that's comparatively routine — presumably because we had articles on most basic topics before DYK even existed, and new articles on common-knowledge topics are extremely rare. Your "proposed" hooks would be appropriate if we didn't have articles on refrigerators, lawnmowers, or schools. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but aren't hooks supposed to be interesting (surprising, intriguing, thought-stimulating, informative...)? What next:
- ALT2: ...
that screened porches are used at the personal residence of architect Walter Gropius to divide the surrounding land into multiple zones comparable to the rooms of a house?
No. The original hook and alt were already accepted, and there's no good reason to delay this for another review. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- No reason other than to avoid the ridicule of the world when such a stupid hook appears on the main page. But hey, knock yourself out. EEng (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Can we avoid "that some people..." in the hook, please? It seems somewhat "chatty" and I think a more encyclopedic tone is preferred on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I sure agree. See posts just before yours. EEng (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can we forget about the objections and remember that this already got approved because it fits all the criteria? We have no policy against this style, and it's been in use since the beginning. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no, it doesn't fit the criteria, which specify that the hook should be interesting. Two editors have, more or less forcefully, indicated that the hook is less than ideal -- in my opinion this hook is utterly inane and to give it even a square millimeter of main-page space makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. If you want to run DYK like some kind of bureaucratic assembly line ("<rubber stamp><rubber stamp> Your forms have been approved!! Move along! What? A better idea?? Sorry, such talk is not allowed here. You want people to start getting ideas or sumptin'?") fine, but don't expect others to stand by without commenting. If it's too much work for you to consider an improvement, maybe you should step aside and let others with more enthusiasm and less cynicism take this one over. EEng (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can we forget about the objections and remember that this already got approved because it fits all the criteria? We have no policy against this style, and it's been in use since the beginning. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I sure agree. See posts just before yours. EEng (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for nominations to be approved by one reviewer, only to be sent back for more work for any variety of reasons, and uninteresting hooks are one of those reasons. Add my voice to those who think the original hook and ALT1 are not interesting, and "that some people" is a construction to be avoided if possible. I've struck those two hooks; please propose a new one. Surely screen porches are not so deadly dull that there are no interesting facts about them? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- What about ALT2? I'll be happy to make this my maiden review (or am I disqualified since I proposed ALT2?). EEng (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're definitely disqualified from reviewing your own hook, I'm afraid. I'd also like Nyttend to have a chance to propose a new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rats! EEng (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- No new hook is forthcoming. Let me remind you that I am experienced with DYK, and the only thing making me cynical and unenthusiastic is people who try to throw out valid, approved articles on worthless grounds. Let me also remind you that the point is that we're not going to put up a hook that's meaningless to people: this is completely different. The point is that we're not featuring trivia that nobody cares about. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rats! EEng (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're definitely disqualified from reviewing your own hook, I'm afraid. I'd also like Nyttend to have a chance to propose a new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- What about ALT2? I'll be happy to make this my maiden review (or am I disqualified since I proposed ALT2?). EEng (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Nyttend, we have clearly reached an impasse. I strongly suggest you take this to WT:DYK, then, and see whether the consensus is in your favor. You have a couple of reviewers here—I'm certainly experienced with DYK—who agree that your two proposed hooks are uninteresting, a clear violation of the hook rules on WP:DYK: "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." I personally don't care about what new ALT is used, but recitation of obvious facts is as problematic in its own way as trivia. The last thing a hook should do is elicit the reaction "of course I knew that"—this is "Did You Know", and if everyone's going to answer "Yes", then the hook has failed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting hook was not supplied by nominator, who also did not take any of the avenues suggested such as a WT:DYK discussion, despite having over a week to do so. As ALT2 is not acceptable to the nominator, there's nothing left to do but close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why does the nominator get to abort the nomination? It was nice of him/her to bring this new content to community attention (that he/she created it is neither here nor there) but after that why shouldn't the matter proceed like everything else on WP -- according to the consensus of interested editors? If Nyttend doesn't want to participate further, fine, but that shouldn't be a toilet-flush on effort others have put in so far. Let someone review using ALT2 (not me, remember, since I suggested ALT2), and this will be an intriguing and informative item for the main page. EEng (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I might point out that since the article was fully reviewed under ALT1, isn't all that's needed a quick review for sourcing of ALT2?
- All three hooks approved, though original and Alt 1 are indeed rather banal for a US audience, but fine for Europe, where screened porches are all but unknown, except as an American eccentricity. Timing should reflect this. Personally I think Alt1 is best. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given that there is some dissension over this nom, perhaps a compromise would be best? I think ALT2 is fine but the nominator doesn't like it. Of the other two hooks, I agree the original is uninteresting because self-evident but ALT1 will surely be an unknown fact and of interest to some. Can we therefore agree to go with ALT1? Gatoclass (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, way too much ink has been spilled over this. Original hook is ridiculous, ALT1 is passable but banal. If you want something they'll find interesting in Europe, ALT2 re Gropius is guaranteed -- honestly Nyttend's objection seems to be that he doesn't understand who Gropius is, or something. Pick whichever you want, just please not the original. It's too embarrassing to Wikipedia as a project. (BTW the B&W photo goes with ALT1, and no photo for ALT2 (I looked around on the web but can't find one for it).