Template:Did you know nominations/1911 Michigan Wolverines football team

1911 Michigan Wolverines football team and "Bottles" Thomson

 * ... that a newspaper quipped that the 1911 Michigan football team, featuring "Bottles" and "Bubbles", could claim the world championship for having players injured?
 * Reviewed: 1938 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

Created/expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nom at 15:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)



citations. Neutral enough. Hook properly formatted. No plagiarism concerns. Pictures are tagged with copyright tags that are acceptable. QPQ done. Hook is interesting enough and supported by fact in article which is supported by inline citation.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough at the time of nomination. George C. Thomson is completely supported by inline
 * Symbol question.svg Michigan Wolverines football team One Fact tag needing cleaning. --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

One little tag fixed and we're good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * * Fixed. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this double-DYK hook? Does this mean we need 2 QPQ reviews? --PFHLai (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is and we do. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did we reach consensus for rule changes regarding multihook nominations needing one review for each hook? (If yes, then my bad,  didn't realise when reviewing.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When QPQ was adopted, there was no consensus for an article-for-article requirement. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 62 and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 62.  For that reason, the rule was implemented on the hook-for-hook basis, and that's still what the rules say.  See Eligibility criteria 5.  I haven't done a multi-nom in a while, but if this has changed, can someone point to where that happened? Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's buried in the archive somewhere, but there was a discussion which showed that many (most?) DYK regulars preferred article to article. Recent, probably in the last 5 archives. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the Archives. The latest discussion (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 80) involved two editors and resulted

in the addition of rule H4 which did not change the "hook-for-hook" rule: "H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable." Cbl62 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, although I'm not keen on the idea. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for charity, dude. If you think it should be required, propose a change in the rule. Cbl62 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for another time. With the rules as currently written, the QPQ is enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I've been asked several times to include a QPQ per article in a hook. If some one asks, it should be done, especially if people are counting multiple nomination hooks as a way of getting multiple QPQs done.  (Which in this case, I most almost certainly will do.) --LauraHale (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that means. Are you saying the hook won't be approved unless I do an article-for-article QPQ?  If so, that is contrary to the rule as written.  Please clarify. Cbl62 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Translation: I've been called out on this enough times that whether or not it is a hard and fast rule, I have learned it is better just to treat it like one. Do the QPQ so we can move on. --LauraHale (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already done the "required" qpq. The  rules clearly and explicitly say hook for hook is all that's required.  I have complied.  You are now seeking to impose something directly contrary to what is required.  I will also say this.  Before qpq, I regularly did multiple reviews whenever I had free time and did so because I enjoyed it.  The regimented qpq system has people do reviews because they are required rather than for fun.  This system makes something that i used to enjoy feel like a chore or punishment.  To then have individuals impose their own subjective views that i should be required to do more even than the rules require really rubs me the wrong way.  I'm happy to help on dyk reviews and have done so for years but not because someone decides to assign me extra work that's not required by the rules.  I supported QPQ when it was proposed, but I now think it creates the wrong incentives.  I like helping out as a wikipedia volunteer on things I find interesting.  I have plenty of obligations in my day job.  Wikipedia, on the other hand, is supposed to be fun.  I've accepted qpq but to then be subjected to somebody's whim that I must do more than the rules require?  Nah.  Cbl62 (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the issue at this point becomes this: Two people thought you should do a QPQ for the second one. You don't want to do a second QPQ.  Do you want the article to be a DYK?  If yes, then you do the QPQ and we move on.  If not, we mark this DYK as fail and we move on. --LauraHale (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule is clear. If a hook is going to be rejected even though the rule has been complied with, then we're in Wonderland. 11:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's call this one good and move on. The articles here are long and have several sources, but they look very good and probably didn't absorb a lot of review time. (My latest nom of a single article by a new contributor probably will be more difficult to review, because the article is rough.) As Cbl62 says, s/he is a long-time DYK participant who rolls up the sleeves and helps. The time spent discussing this could be better spent reviewing. --Orlady (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)