Talk:Royal Air Force Rugby League

Banned?

"an unofficial team set up in 1992 to circumvent a British Armed Forces ban on rugby league" .... it doesnt sound as if there was a ban if a team was formed. It sounds like there was not an official team and then there was. Victuallers (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It was that airmen set up their own team outside of the RAF, it was banned inside the RAF. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• British Army Rugby League
• Royal Navy Rugby League
• Royal Air Force Rugby League
• Great Britain Police Rugby League

)

• ... that the rugby league teams of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, where rugby league was banned until 1994 due to the strength of rugby union, take part in the Challenge Cup alongside Great Britain Police? Source: "9". Routledge Handbook of Global Sport. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317500476.
  • ALT1:... that it wasn't until 1994 that the rugby league teams of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, were permitted to play against the Great Britain Police team (kit pictured - deleted by author)?

• Reviewed: I Hate Music: A cycle of Five Kid Songs for Soprano and Piano, Yellow Drawing Room, Juliet Nightingale, The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film)
• Comment: For 8 May (Challenge Cup 4th round/QF)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC).

• British Army in progress, enough refs, new enough, no close paraphrasing. I'll suggest an alt hook. Happy to have someone else to have a go at the other articles. Victuallers (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Great Britain Police team in progress, enough refs, new enough, no close paraphrasing. I've suggested an alt hook. Happy to have someone else to have a go at the other articles. Victuallers (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well as we missed the proposed date, I'll put this symbol on to make it clear this needs reviewing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles are new enough, long enough, and are within policy. However, the hook wording is very awkward and reads like a run-on sentence. I prefer the language of the Alt1 hook, and I am not certain why that was crossed out. The C of E could you please propose a different hook, or rework the content of the original hook for clarity so we can promote this. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reworded it @4meter4: ALT2... that the rugby league teams of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, where rugby league was banned until 1994 due to rugby union laws, play in the Challenge Cup with Great Britain Police? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That is better, but might I suggest adding the word rules after rugby union. It will be exactly 200 characters, but I think will read better.4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: As a qualified union referee, I am obliged to say we do not have "rules" in rugby union, we have "laws". Accordingly I have added that to the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. As an American I am rugby illiterate. I am approving hook alt2 to be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given the overlap between articles, there is insufficient original prose for all of these to qualify for DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Please explain. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    • As per A5: "New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: Can you be more specific please? Which ones so I know where to add the extra prose? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Army/Navy/Air Force have significant overlap. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria: Oh I see, in the ban due to rugby union sentence and covid sentences. I get where you mean, I'll just add some more prose to those. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
            • @Nikkimaria: I believe I have added sufficient so it can be put back on 5 June now please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
              • Nope, still short. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
                • @Nikkimaria: Which ones and by how much? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Now sufficient prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you @Nikkimaria: now would you be able to put this back in the set please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks like we're in the process of changing cycle time so best wait for that to be sorted before doing anything with date requests. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• The hook was pulled from Queue just before it was to hit the main page per concerns over hook wording at WP:ERRORS. It appears that a new hook is needed here for the article to get its run. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Since ERRORS will soon get cleared, I'll list the reasons I pulled it here:

  1. It's 220 characters; I thought the limit was a "hard" 200, sometimes less. I considered at first maybe multiple-article noms got more leeway, but didn't see anything in the DYK rules about that. Is that an unwritten rule?
  2. It will not be clear to a lot of people that rugby league and rugby union are different things; that might be solved by just linking the two articles.
  3. I fear the hook is trying to tell too many stories in too small a space. The banning of rugby league requires more space to be understandable. And because of the small space, it was simplified too much ("banned ... due to the strength of rugby union"?)
  4. It is not clear (and, I think, maybe not grammatical) to say "... where rugby league was banned" when you're referring, not to a place, but to the British armed forces.
  5. The fact that it was banned, and the fact that the armed forces play in the Challenge cup, appear completely unrelated to each other.
  6. Someone at ERRORS (not me) pointed out that the bold links are a little easter-egg-like.

  In summary, I don't have a great idea on a fix, but I did not think it was ready for the main page as is. Sorry for any bad feelings that may cause. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

In response to the first question, multi-article hooks are an exception to the 200 character limit per WP:DYKSG#C3. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Given this got pulled in the middle of the night when I was asleep, I am a little peeved at that. But hopefully we can get this fixed in time for it to run in the afternoon. The length falls under WP:DYKSG#C3 which clearly states that only the first link in a multi-hook nom counts towards the character count. If the banned bit is the problem we'll just do:

ALT3 ... that the rugby league teams of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force play in the Challenge Cup with Great Britain Police? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)