Jump to content

Talk:Baby Gronk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Knightoftheswords281 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Baby Gronk; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Lamentably, I'll take up this review. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is long enough, new enough, sourced appropriately, and has relevant citations adjacent to hook material. I'm counting four DYK noms—manually, so that may be incorrect—so no QPQ necessary. Hook is certainly "interesting". If there's a barnstar for "I hate that you did this, but you did a good job", Knightoftheswords281 earned it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've unpromoted this per WP:ERRORS. It's not clear to me if this is "let's write a better hook", or "this shouldn't be on DYK at all". I think the later, so tentatively marking this (and not transcluding it back onto the approved list) pending further discussion. @Sojourner in the earth, Black Kite, and Theleekycauldron: RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm actually not immediately persuaded by the WP:DYK#gen4a argument, because no one seriously thinks that Livvy is a child predator. But I would like to point out WP:VOICE, which says that we can't express things as facts if they're just opinions (or memes). The nomination is definitely salvageable, but it's a good question as to whether we can rework something about this incident or whether we'll have to go with something else entirely. The article has issues along similar lines. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I mentioned on WP:ERRORS, USA Today has repeated the terminology and further clarified "She didn’t literally flirt with Baby Gronk". As best I can tell, this has been a misunderstanding of the context of this event (as well as putting too much stock in internet reactions to said event). The exceptionally modern phraseology is repeated (sometimes with translation into less colloquial terms) in reliable sources and contributes to the notability of the article's subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • When journalists feel a need (or possibly a legal obligation) to clarify that the meme they're reporting on is not true, I would suggest that's a good reason not to run it on DYK in wiki-voice. See also the NBC source: "While it's all fun and memes on social media, Dunne did not flirt with or try to seduce Madden." Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering the item again was a largely quirky entry, I don't see why we ought to be taking this rather unserious statement as literally as possible. Additionally, Baby Gronk himself (or more accurately, his father) labeled the situation using the term "rizz" (see this video which is even linked in the article), and the term "rizz" is largely being used in a rather sarcastic manner; no one is seriously implying that Olivia Dunne and San Miguel are dating, let alone having a sexual relationship. — Knightoftheswords 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • To survey current opinions: Knightoftheswords281 and I hold the same line that the terminology is appropriate in WikiVoice and well-referenced while theleekycauldron has reservations based on the same, Sojourner in the earth thinks there's a WikiVoice issue alongside an initial concern about making light of a potentially sexualized interaction between a child and an adult, AirshipJungleman29 doesn't think there was any implication in the hook of sexualization, and RoySmith has concerns but has not articulated them again following the present discussion. I think we're at an impasse. Unless someone can provide clear evidence one way or another as to whether we should run this, I defer to the seniority of the DYK regulars and what their consensus judgement is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been over a month with no action or progress on this nomination, and absent any, I am going with the consensus by the regulars of wikivoice issues and am closing this as unsucessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Baby Gronk


Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

[edit]

The following passage should contain the modifying word “elite” before the word universities to accurately reflect the source which it is from as well as to provide precision because while it is true that acceptance rates are lower among elite universities, it is not true that acceptance rates are lower overall in universities. In fact admission rates have been trending upwards among universities in general. Only in the elite universities category is this an exception.[1]


Text from article to be changed:

largely as a way to combat the record low acceptance rates of universities in the United States.[2] Bielio (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is no longer protected. You can edit it yourself. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://towardsdatascience.com/exploring-a-two-decade-trend-college-acceptance-rates-and-tuition-in-the-u-s-d00307224b2e?gi=f9509735a9db#:~:text=Except%20for%20the%20least%20competitive,economic%20factors%20like%20the%20recession.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference :6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2024

[edit]

Can someone undo this edit, or at least restore the two sentences that got replaced for unknown reasons with the word "privatized"? (there may be too many conflicting edits since the edit to simply undo). 2601:80:CB80:A770:6108:DEC:DB15:EEE8 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The tone in there is awful as far as WP:NPOV, but it didn't even make grammatical sense after the change, so fixed per request. PianoDan (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

[edit]

Adding a photo of baby gronk to his wiki page, thanks. Vancer112 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. NotAGenious (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baby_Gronk&oldid=1256909210"