Template:Did you know nominations/Longest title ever?

The following is an archived discussion of Longest title ever?'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness

(

)

... United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness?

ALT1:... that the title, United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, has been a target of mirth?
ALT2:... that Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, the product labeled a cure for drukenness, was brought into court for false misleadings?
Reviewed: Crisis and Transformation in Seventeenth-Century China
Comment: I have no objections against adding more ALTs. The original hook does not contain "...that" due to the title's length; I hope ignoring that rule applies.

Created by Joe Decker (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 19:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but ... unimaginative hook. It's a funny case title? So's United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, which I got to DYK last April Fools'. So are most in rem cases, in fact. Can we find something about the case itself? Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What about ALT2? Have you checked it yet? --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't there when I reviewed it, I don't think. But anyway ... product taken to court for deceptive packaging? Dog bites man. However, reading does give me an idea for an ALT3 that will allow us to use the full case title, and include what makes the case notable besides that:

ALT3:... that the 1941 case United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness held that the government does not need to show intent to mislead when alleging a violation of the Food and Drug Act's labeling provisions? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT3 is too long and over 200 characters. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's 271. If you want to just pipe the title to "a 1941 case" you could get that down to 155. But it's probably better to show most of the title. ALT3a is 194.
ALT3a:... that U.S. v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness held that an intent to mislead need not be shown when alleging a labeling violation? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(Comment) Note I've added a reference and text that this case was one of the first actions of the FDA. This may be helpful. I haven't worked here at DYK, so I'll leave y'all to the real work. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs a reviewer for the article and the various hooks. I have struck ALT2 because the phrase "false misleadings" does not work. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is fine: date, length, sources are good. Could we please save this for April Fool's Day? This would lend itself excellently to a humorous hook, perhaps along the lines of the following. Prioryman (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT4: ... that Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness didn't work for Uncle Sam?

~~Here comes our fishies. --George Ho (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)~~Removed from Fish Day; sent back to date of nomination. --George Ho (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT5 ... that the United States Government brought 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness to court?

I threw up another option. Anyone like? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this isn't going for April Fools, can a reviewer please make clear which extant hooks are approved and which are not? It should be someone who hasn't proposed a hook that's still in contention, for obvious reasons. (I've just struck the overlong ALT3.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Still need that reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ALT4 looks good to me. I haven't checked the article for DYK compliance yet. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Approving ALT5, everything looks good. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with ALT4? IMO it's a better hook, it's more concise and it's a good pun. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)