Template:Did you know nominations/Ohio State Buckeyes field hockey
- 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 Fuebaey (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ohio State Buckeyes field hockey
[edit]_(6317032364).jpg)
- ... that the Ohio State Buckeyes field hockey program (pictured) has won three Big Ten Conference regular-season championships and one conference tournament title?
ALT1:... that the Ohio State Buckeyes field hockey team (pictured) usually force their opponents to make do with locker rooms at the university's softball stadium?(alternate hook withdrawn by nominator)- Reviewed: Candidula spadae
Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self nominated at 05:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC).
Extended discussion about the suitability of the (now withdrawn) alternative hook
- WITH ALT1 WE HAVE SURELY REACHED THE ABSOLUTE DEPTHS IN THE UTTERLY STUPID, BORING, WHO-GIVES-A-SHIT HOOK DEPARTMENT. ARE THERE NEVER TO BE ANY LIMITS ON HOW PEDESTRIAN A HOOK CAN BE? YES I'M SHOUTING. FROM THE ROOFTOPS I SHOUT IT! EEng (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Removed big tag and bolding from comment above. I absolutely agree we should focus on interesting hooks; I do take issue that this hook is somehow representatively pedestrian when a reconstructed fort wall's brief appearance in a completely-forgotten 1960s movie is the hook above and 'an "orphan rug" was made by orphans and is a rug' is the hook below. The idea that universities even need more than one shared locker room (let alone that the female field hockey team feels they need one separate from the female softball team) speaks to some pretty huge issues with modern America's education system and the cost of current tertiary education. — LlywelynII 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying about an expectation of plentiful locker rooms and the high cost of postsecondary education, but that operates at a level of subtlety not normally appreciated here at DYK. Back to the point at hand this is quite near the dumbest hook ever. EEng (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I admit the alternate hook is a bit unusual, which is why I made it the alternate. I'd personally prefer the first hook (which is why I made it the first choice), but I felt that it may be seen as not interesting enough for DYK.
- I understand what you're saying about an expectation of plentiful locker rooms and the high cost of postsecondary education, but that operates at a level of subtlety not normally appreciated here at DYK. Back to the point at hand this is quite near the dumbest hook ever. EEng (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Remember though, LlywelynII, that the Ohio State University athletics department is one of the few in the country that generates more money than it spends and receives a subsidy of $0. That means that it doesn't drive up the cost of of attending OSU by one penny, as essentially everything in the Buckeye athletic department is funded by ticket sales, television rights payments, and merchandising (in other words, by fans, not by students). Perhaps I made an assumption that I shouldn't have (that the fact that Ohio State has one of the most successful, accomplished, and sustainable athletics programs in the United States is widely known), but I thought that the alternate hook was interesting because one wouldn't expect the Buckeyes to be one of the schools lacking in terms of facilities.
- The University of Michigan, by comparison, has a fantastic field hockey venue (complete with road locker rooms), and financially it is very similar to Ohio State in the sense that it is fully self-sufficient, although its expenses are much closer to its revenues and occasionally runs a small annual deficit. Once again, I probably assumed something I shouldn't have, but I still think that it is interesting to someone who is familiar with Ohio State or Big Ten athletics. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused. Michael Barera (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- PS: If everyone really does feel that the alternate hook is terrible, I'd be happy to scratch it and just go with the the first choice. I just personally don't think that it is terrible, but if I'm in the minority on that point, I wouldn't hesitate to simply remove the ALT from this nomination. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The background details don't matter, because no matter how you cut it, you can't breathe life into a hook about such a trivial, minor detail which no one not directly affected could possibly care about. Think about it: can you imagine the following discussion at the office water cooler:
- Bob: Hey, Bill, did you know that visiting opponents of the Ohio State Buckeyes field hockey team typically utilize the locker rooms of the university's softball venue?
- Bill: You don't say! <rushing off> Hey, Joe, have you heard? Visiting opponents of the ...
- Get what I mean? If even all 8 billion people on earth read that hook, not one would pass it on to a friend, coworker, or spouse. Not one. And if they did, they might get shot by people angry that little slice of their life had been so blatantly wasted. It's utterly unrepeatable.
- The background details don't matter, because no matter how you cut it, you can't breathe life into a hook about such a trivial, minor detail which no one not directly affected could possibly care about. Think about it: can you imagine the following discussion at the office water cooler:
- PS: If everyone really does feel that the alternate hook is terrible, I'd be happy to scratch it and just go with the the first choice. I just personally don't think that it is terrible, but if I'm in the minority on that point, I wouldn't hesitate to simply remove the ALT from this nomination. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please understand that my rant isn't directed at you specifically or even your hook. It's simply that, by an accident of the raw material you're working with, you've managed to compose the perfect standard-bearer for the many truly stultifying hooks that get passed through each week. EEng (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- No offense taken. I understand your criticism, EEng, and I certainly agree with you that it isn't the most exciting DYK hook. However, I don't think that it is that bad, and for someone with a bit of background knowledge perhaps it is even a bit interesting (at least I think so, for the reasons I've already laid out). For someone who's been to Ohio Stadium, I think that the difference in facilities from one varsity program to another at the same university is at least mildly interesting. Maybe if you don't know the context it seems to be "utterly unrepeatable", so once again perhaps my greatest mistake was overestimating general knowledge about Ohio State athletics.
- Please understand that my rant isn't directed at you specifically or even your hook. It's simply that, by an accident of the raw material you're working with, you've managed to compose the perfect standard-bearer for the many truly stultifying hooks that get passed through each week. EEng (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- PS: Does anyone have an interest in reviewing the nomination? It isn't very long and all of the references that I cited are freely available on the Internet. Michael Barera (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I guess in some NCAA administrative office, that conversation could in fact have taken place. EEng (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, again, I don't feel it's that terrible at all. Some people would be annoyed about collegiate athletics; some at Title IX issues; some at funding for particular sports; some at facility design. There are much, much worse hooks... and it's the ALT we're going to ignore anyway. (Fixed the phrasing, though.)
- Well, I guess in some NCAA administrative office, that conversation could in fact have taken place. EEng (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- PS: Does anyone have an interest in reviewing the nomination? It isn't very long and all of the references that I cited are freely available on the Internet. Michael Barera (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- So it's not a problem with a boring hook per se: it's just a fairly minor, boring article unless they have accomplished something notable. (Y'know, the main hook.)
- Here's a discussion worth having: should we reject articles because of our subjective/quasi-objective ideas of "boring"? or isn't it worth rewarding people creating new articles by letting them all come through if they meet WP:NOTABILITY? My own thought is that being too strict about "interest" would introduce bias, discourage contributors, and risk dry spells where no DYK "qualified" to be shown. Further, if this hook is boring, it makes the interesting hooks look all the more enticing by being next to it, the way less attractive wingmen/BFFs help you seem better by comparison. — LlywelynII 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- How noble of you, offering your hook as a kind of altruistic sacrifice, so that its fellow hooks will have a better chance of propagating their superior genetics. Unfortuntely, DYK Rule 3a wants each hook to stand on its own two feet -- a kind of hook Darwinism: "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." I thought about your statement that there are much, much worse hooks, and it turns out you're right:
- ALTMUCHMUCHWORSE ... the Ohio State Buckeyes field hockey program's Buckeye Varsity Field features 3/8" closed-cell perforated foam padding?
- EEng (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. In a weird way, that's so studiedly dull that it has a kind of in-your-face, so-what-if-I'm-dull attractiveness. You might get a few clicks with that one after all. EEng (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- See, I knew you would come around eventually. It seems like a fun game to try to come up with the worst possible hook for a given article. It's surprisingly hard. I was thinking of going for ...'s only Olympian—Sue Marcellus—failed to bring home a medal? but that leads to two interesting points: it's because she got shafted when the US boycotted the 1980 Olympics and it's really cool to see that Zimbabwe won gold that year. In any case, we should probably hesh up and let someone review the actual hook. — LlywelynII 18:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- How noble of you, offering your hook as a kind of altruistic sacrifice, so that its fellow hooks will have a better chance of propagating their superior genetics. Unfortuntely, DYK Rule 3a wants each hook to stand on its own two feet -- a kind of hook Darwinism: "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." I thought about your statement that there are much, much worse hooks, and it turns out you're right:
- Here's a discussion worth having: should we reject articles because of our subjective/quasi-objective ideas of "boring"? or isn't it worth rewarding people creating new articles by letting them all come through if they meet WP:NOTABILITY? My own thought is that being too strict about "interest" would introduce bias, discourage contributors, and risk dry spells where no DYK "qualified" to be shown. Further, if this hook is boring, it makes the interesting hooks look all the more enticing by being next to it, the way less attractive wingmen/BFFs help you seem better by comparison. — LlywelynII 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts have inline citations to reliable sources and are correct as far as I can make out. The image is appropriately licensed, the article is neutral and I observed no close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
