Template:Did you know nominations/Fury of the Congo

Fury of the Congo

 * ... that the William Berke-directed Fury of the Congo (1951) follows Jungle Jim in the Congo battling a giant desert spider and a few hunters?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John Wheatley (physicist)

Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 06:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Hook fact is not cited in the article. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hook fact is not cited in the article? 1) The director part is cited in the body and mentioned in the lead. 2) The plot needs not citations. Ciao, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what to do with this. I realize that plot summaries don't need to be cited, but part of the hook refers to the plot, and according to the DYK rules, the hook fact needs to be "cited with an inline citation in the article". Perhaps another DYK reviewer could comment and assure me that this is ok (or not?) Sasata (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh... here we go again. See also: WP:DYKSG. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 05:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please point out which line of either of the links you posted specifically exempt a DYK hook from being sourced in the article (per "cited with an inline citation in the article")? Sasata (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's right at D2. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That refers to sourcing of the article, not the DYK hook. Sasata (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment from an uninvolved editor: I would certain expect the hook fact to be referenced, even in a plot. Certain elements of a plot are not exempt from other sourcing requirements. The story-relevant direct quotes in Frank's Cock, for instance, are both cited with in-line citations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But this element of the plot in the hook does not need citations. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 06:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are using it for a DYK hook. DYK hooks must be cited. Ergo, that part of the plot must have a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whot, so the reviewers for the past twenty or so DYK uncited plot hooks of mine have been wrong? Besides, the director bit is cited. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 07:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has the plot been part of the hook fact each time? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the uncited ones. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 08:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then they shouldn't have passed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But I do not understand why a hook pertaining to a plot must be cited just for the sake of the rules when in other cases it does not need to be! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 06:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg "Extraordinary facts" must be cited. Adding such a citation is simply a matter of watching the movie on your computer and taking note of the minute, than marking it as a citation. Removing the citation after DYK is a simple matter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But what's the point if the citation is to be removed ultimately? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 07:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that the hook of a DYK is considered an extraordinary claim, so people coming to the article because they read the hook on the main page are able to find out more about the facts in it—including about the plot—because they are cited. Bonkers, this has been going on long enough. You have 24 hours from the time of your next edit to add the citation as DYK rules require. It's entirely up to you, but if you don't add the citation, this nomination will be rejected because it fails the DYK criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Easily done in ten seconds. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 04:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done. No spiders on page 216. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"tribal natives of Congo". I thought he was banned from black people-related content?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC) I see, although I'm sure the boundary is somewhat blurred in places.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the topic ban was "race-related" topics, i.e. those focusing on racial issues or race relations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, blurry. I think it's clear that topics such as watermelon streotype are no longer allowed (as race is intrinsic), but in this case there could be an argument that the race of the characters is incidental. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now good? Sorry I got the page number wrong. 216 gives part of the plot. Half of 217 gives the remaining half of Congos plot, followed by Jungle Manhunts. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Ready now. AGF as I can't access that page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)