Great Britain Police Rugby League is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
A fact from Great Britain Police Rugby League appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 June 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
... 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since ERRORS will soon get cleared, I'll list the reasons I pulled it here:
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?
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.
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"?)
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.
The fact that it was banned, and the fact that the armed forces play in the Challenge cup, appear completely unrelated to each other.
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)[reply]
@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:
.jpg){kind=small}
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)
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)
