Template:Did you know nominations/A load of old cobblers

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk| 
 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

{{DYK conditions}}

A load of old cobblers

 * ... that this article is a load of old cobblers?
 * ALT1:... that ...?
 * Reviewed: Halocynthia igaboja

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC).


 * This would fit better as an April Fools' DYK, no? Juxlos (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because it is May. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We had strong and stable for May. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Article is new enough, long enough, no copyvios, well-written and sourced, but per precedent here, I don't think "meta" hooks are considered acceptable by the community. Can you think of an ALT? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely this can be an exception Ritchie? You have to admit it's a strong hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * and I don't know what a "meta" hook is.  But I'm a little concerned that the hook is WP:EASTEREGG, and therefore subject to being objected to by one or more editors. I do find the article interesting, and not being British, I'd never heard of the term. Maybe you can find a hook that draws in the non-British who are curious about the term. It's really neat to read these kinds of articles. — Maile  (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an easter egg though is it? The link leads to the article named in the second part of the hook. It would work well in the last spot whether people know the phrase or not. So what if people complain? Most will appreciate it. We don't need to kill every shred of humour or cleverness just to avoid complaints at errors. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am neutral on whether or not the hook should be allowed (I'd be open to it for AFD, not sure on other dates), but I think it might be better safe than sorry to suggest an ALT in case the current one doesn't work out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The hook is factually accurate, it's just a bit playful, so I don't see much of a problem with it and think it would work fine in the quirky slot or held over for April fools. Given the amount of nitpicking we sometimes see these days however, a backup ALT in case of objections might be a good idea per Narutolovehinata5, but that's up to the nominator. Gatoclass (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC).
 * If the nominator really wants the current hook to run, I suggest using it for April Fools since there will be more leniency for hook formats on that date. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that the phrase "a load of old cobblers" is often used by people unaware of its vulgar origins?
 * From WT:DYK. – Teratix ₵ 06:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is fine, but I do think the original hook suggestion is a lot more fun. DYK's fun is the serendipity and vast variety of what shows up there.--Milowent 12:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, this is just a back-up. – Teratix ₵ 13:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Okay, since we've got a back-up alt for the cynics, we're good to go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if giving this the tick right now is a good idea since the primary contributors have yet to weigh in on ALT1. Would you be fine with ALT1 running in case the original is rejected for whatever reason? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT1a: ... that users of the phrase "a load of old cobblers" are often unaware of its vulgar origins?
 * I hope we are not going to swap it at the first sign of grumbling on Errors. Factual errors are one thing, the use of humour, puns, and word-play etc, quite something else. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The first hook doesn't work. There would have to be an independent, reliable source stating that the Wikipedia article is a load of old cobblers. Further, the hook essentially says that the article is nonsense. This is, hopefully, false. If the hook were true, then the article would be deleted under db-nonsense. The rules can't be broken to use an unsourced and false hook just because it may be quirky. Bells, bells , bells  (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While not cited in the article, the hook is true and easily verifiable by readers; it refers to the title. – Teratix ₵ 09:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This comment is, unfortunately, what I feared. However, hopefully we have consensus on our side for when the inevitable thread explodes on WT:DYK. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the thousands of readers who have no idea of the inner workings of Wikipedia and couldn't care less about them, who will visit and enjoy the article and get the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As a compromise, would everyone here agree to this running on April Fool's Day instead of as a regular hook? Considering there are concerns about the presentation of the hook and "sourcing". Meanwhile, since non-standard hooks tend to be allowed on AFD, people might be more accepting and if anything the punch may be even better. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because it is May. What is the problem with the sourcing? It seems very solid to me. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I actually like the hook and if I had my way this could go in the quirky slot. I'd also mention that we have the essay WP:BLUE which states that obvious fact need not be cited. With that said, multiple editors have objected to the hook, and the way things stand, it can't push through unless consensus is reached to do so. As for the comment about May, considering AFD hooks are decided in the whole year before the next one, I don't think an AFD hook being decided on early is problematic. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Adding icon so that this won't be promoted while issues are still being sorted out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A larger concern that I may as well bring up here if this nomination is to be on hold: the list of newspaper mentions at the end seems to be a little indiscriminate and might constitute synthesis if it's intended to make a point about existing usage. – Teratix ₵ 12:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * FFS I can't believe ALT0 is being held up because some schoolmarm with literally 22 edits total had his funny bone surgically removed after a pogo stick accident. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Replacing tick and promoting this because I am fed up with seeing it lingering indefinitely. It is in the spirit of DYK and it has an alternative hook available if any objections to this one materialise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) |}}