Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Eiseman-Reynard and others v. the United Kingdom

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Eiseman-Reynard and others v. the United Kingdom‎

[edit]
(
)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

Hooks are not quite factual IMO and may need a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC).

I've struck ALT0 as I think it's too misleading. You might get away with ALT1. Gatoclass (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

Date, size, refs, copyvio spotcheck, ok. April Fools hook, hmmm. I am not sure if this is fine, it seems too generic (the first version limited to UK seems better) but instead I'll propose ALT2 below. And if it won't fly, then there's the more boring but rather safe ALT3. In either case, this needs another reviewer to comment on ALT2/ALT3. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
ALT2: that zombies attempted to prevent a royal wedding in 2011 in the United Kingdom?
ALT3: that activists dressed as zombies attempted to prevent a royal wedding in 2011 in the United Kingdom?
@Piotrus: I'd rather we use either the originally proposed hooks, I have unstruck the original because I think it is good and very much fits the April Fools Day brief. I'm happy if you wish to pass the original. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
No sorry The C of E, but you cannot simply override the objections of an independent reviewer on one of your own nominations, that's completely inappropriate. ALT0 is ineligible in my view because it doesn't accurately reflect the facts, as it misleadingly implies that zombies in the UK can be arrested on sight. ALT2 could probably be considered a pass because it alerts the reader to the fact that there is a very real question of law behind the apparent fantastic circumstance. You shouldn't be unstriking your own hooks and you certainly should not be doing so without providing a valid argument ("I like it" is not a valid argument). In order to avoid unpleasantness I am not going to restrike the hook, but my objection remains and I will not be assenting to the promotion of this hook until I see a valid argument in support of it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC).
Please show me the rule where it says I cannot express disagreement by unstriking. ALT0 does work because the people were arrested dressed as zombies and in the great tradition of April Fools Day, that is exactly the sort of fool-ish thing we are looking for as once people click in it, they will realise the fooling. This is I think one of the best examples and I wasn't originally planning on doing it but I felt I had no choice due to the slow movement. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't need a rule for every possible example of inappropriate conduct, common sense should tell you that you shouldn't be unstriking your own hooks, and certainly not without a valid, stated reason for doing so. You still haven't provided a valid argument in support of ALT0, and I am not going to respond to the specious argument you advanced above tonight as I'm about to log off. What I will point out is that I did accept your own ALT hook (in spite of some misgivings) so I fail to see why it's apparently so important to you that the other also be approved (as the promoter may well have preferred the alt in any case).

My only other comment at this point is that I happen to agree with you that ALTs 2 and 3 are not sufficiently April fools-ish, any further comments from me will probably have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

The reason is because it fits the brief of AFD, I don't mind if its either the original or ALT1. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
ALT4... that British police arrested zombies who then filed a European human rights case? @Gatoclass: @Piotrus: any better? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I prefer ALT2 ALT1 as it's pretty obvious from ALT3 ALT4 that it's just people dressed up as zombies. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am not going to agree with that because they do not fit the AFD brief. (If it makes it obvious they're dressed up, it ruins the joke) Original, ALT1 or ALT4 are the ones I'm preferring @Gatoclass:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The original hook is struck again; I agree with Gatoclass on the reasons that it's problematic. This is not the first time The C of E has inappropriately unstruck hooks that reviewers have said will not do; this behavior needs to stop. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I may have gotten my alts mixed up in the previous post [since corrected]; in any case, since we agree The C of E that ALT1 works and we disagree on the others, we should go with ALT1. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I am happy to go with ALT1 @Gatoclass:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Are you able to approve ALT1 please? I am just a bit mindful that we're cutting it very close to the AFD deadline. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: ALT1 verified. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Eiseman-Reynard_and_others_v._the_United_Kingdom&oldid=944456025"