Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Debatable, Make Me an Egghead

< Template:Did you know nominations
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) 05:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Debatable (TV show)

edit
(
)
  • ... that Debatable and Make Me an Egghead were both commissioned for 20 half-hour episodes and five 45-minute episodes, and aired in adjacent time slots?

Created by Launchballer (talk), Wonderwizard (talk), and Nigej (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 09:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

  • ALT0 is absolutely fascinating! EEng 18:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this hook is really dull, if accepted this will just get rejected at WT:DYK. Joseph2302 10:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I've struck the hook as clearly failing the interesting requirement at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the man replaced by Make Me An Egghead's victors was later arrested on suspicion of murder? I'm not feeling 100%, I'll come back later to think of one for Debatable.--Launchballer 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sure ALT1 is a BLP violation/undue, as CJ de Mooi's arrest shouldn't be the main thing in the hook about the show. Also, he's been arrested but not found guilty. Joseph2302 18:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing -- too bad, since it would have made a juicy hook. Is there maybe some hook like, "The all-time champion lost his crown when he couldn't remember the name of the Prince of Wales?" -- something like that? EEng 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Both hooks have been struck due to significant issues. A new hook will be needed soon if this nomination is to remain open. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that the panels involved in the making of Debatable included panelists as diverse as a former MP and a rapper?
ALT3: ... that, although two £1,000,000 winners made it, an attempt by a third to become an Egghead saw him fall at the first hurdle?--Launchballer 13:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Does the source mention the diversity? Can't rappers be MPs? EEng 14:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The source confirms that variously there was a rapper and an MP, yes.--Launchballer 18:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I hate to be a stickler, but in that case simply say that panelists included a rapper and a former MP -- I don't think WP should be adding the diversity idea (which really is slightly objectionable IMHO -- after all, Al Franken went from Saturday Night Live comedian to US senator, and a good one at that). I also don't see the point of saying "the panels involved included panelists" i.e.
ALT4 ... that Debatable panelists have included a former MP and a rapper?
EEng 20:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect to Sen. Franken and deference to your opinion of his work, I think it's fair to say that becoming a federal senator involved a huge amount of code switching and, however excellent an MP a rapper may turn out to be, Launchballer's point was still well taken. That said, your entry is punchier and people can feel the dichotomy (or lack thereof) in their own heads. — LlywelynII 03:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT4 G2G for Debatable. 5× expanded 7 days prior to nomination; long enough (~2.2k elig. chars.); earwig finds massive copyvio but it seems to be other sites that cribbed Wikipedia and not the other way round; the article is very badly written—inter alia, for no apparent reason, it repeats the words "TV presenter" six times in a sentence instead of grouping them as "TV presenters"—but I don't think that's dispositive for DYK purposes, just something that should be cleaned up down the road and avoided by the article's writers in the future; the article is in egregious violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but I can fix that easily enough and, again, it's just something to be avoided in the future by the article's writers; the article is currently an utter WP:ORPHAN and should have been linked from somewhere else by its writers (do we have a list of quiz shows page or something? [edit: guess not... though there is this...]) but that's not dispositive for DYK purposes either; QPQ done; hook needed italics for its TV series' title but easy enough to add. — LlywelynII 12:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
(Note: Make Me an Egghead material before and after ALT6 has been deleted as irrelevant now that this page is solely about Debatable (TV show); it can be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Make Me an Egghead.)
Post-separation section
edit
  • Launchballer, I have just separated Make Me an Egghead from the joint Debatable/Make Me an Egghead nomination, because at this point these two need to be dealt with as individual nominations; this one now only deals with Debatable (TV show). Although this had been ticked by LlywelynII for ALT4 (I have struck ALT2 since it wasn't approved), hook ALT6 has subsequently been proposed.
The reason I have superseded the tick is that the article is badly out of date, and I'm more troubled by the lack of secondary sources than Llewelyn II; the sole secondary source is used to support the time when the program aired. The program went off the air in late September, yet that basic a fact isn't in the article, nor whether the show will ever return (which may not be known, but there isn't even any rating information or analysis). Right now, the article needs updating and secondary sourcing that is not based on either BBC sites or your own viewing of the show. Please take care of this soon, since the nomination is over three months old. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As before, ALT4 G2G. None of BlueMoonset's valid criticisms of the article have anything to do with a DYK nomination (or an invalidating policy consideration). They belong on the article's talk page, not here. The BBC is a perfectly reliable source for basic, noncontroversial facts about programs that aired on the BBC. ALT4 was fine and ALT6 is worse, not such an improvement that it occasions reopening the nomination. The additional links would just siphon away hits from the actual article, generic cricketers aren't notable to the Commonwealth, and no one in other parts of the world care about them terribly much. Saying MP is also hookier for Americans, who may confuse them with military police. — LlywelynII 14:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Very sorry, LlywelynII, but as WP:DYKSG#D7 points out, "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." To not have something as basic as the show's actual run is clearly inadequate per DYK rules. We could take this to WT:DYK if you feel we've reached an impasse, but the article shouldn't be promoted before then. (I have struck ALT6 per the review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean, the show's run isn't in the article? It gives the start and end date at the start of the article and in the infobox and explains when each individual episode aired (albeit in tables). I've sourced a number of unsourced paragraphs but quite frankly what's the hold up?--Launchballer 21:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, Debatable (TV show)'s lead clearly says "has aired on BBC Two since 22 August 2016" with no end date, and the infobox also gives no end date. Please check again. (This is the Debatable template; Make Me an Egghead is now on a different page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand that Blue may feel strongly that not all of his needs as a reader have been met and he is welcome to raise those concerns on the article's talk page, but, no, the article doesn't actually fail RANDOMSUBRULE#D7. It's a TV show and its specific end date is not actually so crucial as to hold up a DYK. It is sourced, within policy, and addresses the nature of the show. It's fine.

    Obviously, it would be nice to have a third or fourth party here telling one or both of us to shut up but DYK is not a sledgehammer to be used to enforce quality control on new articles. It's a basic "here's what we have" that brings in readers to fix problems. WP:GOODARTICLE is a great and necessary project here at Wikipedia but this isn't it. Trying to turn DYK into a GA process is only going to piss off and drive off both article creators and the reviewers. If that's what we're trying to do, um, I guess this is a good way to go... but I missed that memo. — LlywelynII 04:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not with it at all at the moment; I thought we were referring to Make Me an Egghead. I've added referencing for the Debatable article.--Launchballer 12:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Have your objections been met and is this long-delayed nomination ready for promotion? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I'll leave it in your hands. My primary objection, that there was no mention at all of when the program ended, was addressed in one part of the article, though the lead still gives no clue in that regard. As for LlywelynII, he and I will have to agree to disagree. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Debatable,_Make_Me_an_Egghead&oldid=1070598666"