Template:Did you know nominations/James Acaster's Classic Scrapes


 * 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) 05:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

James Acaster's Classic Scrapes

 * ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank war between the author and a nine-year-old child? Source: the book itself

Created by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 12:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC).
 * QPQ: Height function — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Interesting book, on excellent sources, no copyvio obvious, quotations clearly marked and cited. - I would not have clicked on this, I confess, as a foreigner who doesn't know Acaster, not what "scrapes" means, and little interested in cabbage. How about at least hinting at that it is a funny/witty autobiography by a young man? Some from reception rather than a story bit? Think about it, please. If you love the hook as it is, I'll approve it. I know the feeling ... ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest I am quite keen on the cabbage hook. I thought "scrapes" was a fairly common term—perhaps it's more a UK thing. But I don't mind adding some context so I'm happy with either the above or either of the following (or a hybrid): — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes, an autobiography by comedian James Acaster, ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank war between Acaster and a nine-year-old child?
 * ALT2: ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes, a book about embarrassing stories from comedian James Acaster's life, ends with a cabbage-based prank war between Acaster and a nine-year-old child?
 * Thank you, could you now change ALT1, avoiding to have his name twice? Pipe link or what you can think of.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see any sensible way of doing this. "an autobiography by a comedian" would violate WP:EASTER (and sounds a bit weird) and "James Acaster's" is part of the book title. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Well, here's an Easter egg version, three choices for the prep builder:
 * ALT3: ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes, an autobiography by the comedian, ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank war between him and a nine-year-old child?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg unless you have a new idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. This is how I would phrase it:
 * ALT1a: ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank war between the comedian and a nine-year-old child?
 * But there is no inline cite for the hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's excellent phrasing. The best source for the fact is the book itself, and the work itself is by convention not cited in the synopsis section. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant because "scrapes ends" - plural noun + singular verb - sounds wrong or at least irritating to me, also let's not forget that a reader doesn't know it's a book, and in that version never knows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound wrong to me. I'd be happy with "... that the autobiography James...." if you want to mention that it's a book. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd approve that if you word it. A prep builder should not face the task of assembling a hook from a proposal with comments ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ALT1b: ... that the autobiography James Acaster's Classic Scrapes ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank war between the comedian and a nine-year-old child?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg - like that so much that I strike the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I've pulled this from the Queue. Per WP:DYK "Cited hook – Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." This hook is not sourced with an inline citation. Plot summaries are not sourced, so you need to have a different hook, please. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, of course, you can source that part of the Synopsis section in the article (at the end of the "The book ends" sentence) and retain the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm going to be frank: this is nonsense. I can give you direct page numbers or quotes from the book if you want. I've made the source very clear to editors and it's incredibly obvious to any reader that the source for the book summary is the book (!!!). But it's standard practice to leave the synopsis uncited. This wouldn't cause a problem at FAC. It's absolutely nonsensical and violates the spirit of all the rules we have for it to cause a problem at DYK. I see that the hook was pulled because The Rambling Man listed it at WP:ERRORS2. I'm not going to be bullied into writing a different hook because TRM wants to artificially inflate his ERRORS2 count. I'm also not going to introduce a formatting inconsistency that actually would be pointed out at FAC (hypothetically of course; I'm well aware the article is nowhere near that standard). — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being frank. And so will I.  This had nothing to do with anybody's anything.  As an admin, I routinely check the Queues to see if anything is amiss.  That's what admins are supposed to do, and it had nothing to do with anything except that I was doing a routine check. This was, per the rules. If I had not pulled it, chances are pretty good that another admin would have. Nobody is trying to bully you.  And if you read BlueMoonset's comments above, he gave you an easy resolution to this. — Maile  (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case I genuinely apologise for the mistake I made in assuming this was related to the ERRORS2 kerfuffle. The simplest resolution is to approve the hook as there is nothing wrong here. Of course the page is not under my ownership but I certainly will not be adding an inline citation in a place where it does not belong. Incites are useful for precisely two things that I can think of: verifying that content on Wikipedia is true; and allowing readers to find the source from which the information comes from. There's no-one that I can see disputing that the content is verifiably true and I can think of no reader who wouldn't understand that the source they need to view to see what's in the book is the book itself. Furthermore I can see no-one disputing that it's convention for book synopses to be implicitly cited to the work itself. It doesn't help anyone to pull a hook based on a bureaucratic rule that common sense dictates is irrelevant here. That's why we have admins—for human discretion—and not just bots. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All right, then. Apology accepted. I feel I did what I should.  But I'll leave a note over at WT:DYK asking others to comment here on this.  Whatever they decide, is what they decide, and I won't interfere in it.  Just as a passing thought, there is something worse than an approved hook being pulled from Queue or Prep, where it can later be re-added and have a full run.  And that's when a hook gets pulled while it's on the main page before its run is done. It's such a shame when it gets pulled from the main page.  We are all human, stepping all over each other's feet trying to accomplish the same thing.  Good luck with this. — Maile  (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Had this been a fiction book, I would have said outright that the hook wouldn't be allowed at all. As it stands, since it's an autobiography and does talk about a real-world event, I see no issues with that. With that said, this is a fairly complicated case: DYK rules state that hook facts must be cited inline. On the other hand, summaries of books generally do not require sources as it's assumed in good faith that the source is the work itself. While I would have said that as a compromise, it could be possible to add a footnote to the relevant sentence mentioning the book page, I don't really think it's really necessary and we can probably do an WP:IAR case here ignoring the relevant rule. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO this is a clear case of following the rules for citing the DYK hook fact, or choosing another hook that follows the rules for citing the DYK hook fact. While plot synopses are exempt from being cited in general, when you want to take a hook fact from the synopsis, you will have to cite that sentence. And it's not true that all plot synopses go uncited; I just wrote an article on a work of fiction, Silver Wedding (novel), and cited all the sentences in the synopsis because otherwise the article would be largely unverified text and probably not accepted at DYK., please just cite the hook fact to the book page and we can move forward. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The cabbage incident is mentioned in The Sun but I can't remember if we allow that tabloid as a reliable source. I can't find much other mention of it in secondary sources.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It really isn't a problem for DYK to cite the book itself. Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Reviews Hub source (FN1) specifically mentions the cabbage incident; the book would be needed to cover the age of the child and the story being last in said book. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If only to allay the concerns of other editors, I'd suggest you please just add the footnote to the relevant sentence so that this nomination can be approved. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have left the nominator a talk page message and will give them until June 5 to respond to the concerns. Failure to respond will result in the nomination being closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see diff. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He didn't respond and has not edited the article since the middle of this month. Should I give him until June 5, or should this be closed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely up to you. I will respect your judgement on this. — Maile (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg As the nominator has apparently decline to resolve the issue that has been raised by others, this nomination is now being marked for closure as unsuccessful. It's a shame it has to end this way as the hook itself was really good, but that's how the cookie crumbles. If you really still wish for this nomination to continue, please add the citation so that this marking will be reversed and the tick can be restored. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Start over. Another editor driven away?


 * ALT1c: ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes is a comedian's autobiography?


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Sorry, Bilorv, I liked yours better, but DYK and wikilawyering are one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * what are you saying? The nominator's ALT1b hook is great; he just has to provide a cite. He refuses to do so. Who is "wikilawyering"? Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the editor doesn't add that cite which is required only by strict rules (because normally plot things don't have to be cited, and striking my angry comment anyway) someone else could do it. I would if I knew enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the reviewer who signed off on the hook. If you cited the hook, then a different reviewer would need to sign off on your edit.— Maile (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why I used the symbol "ready for a new review". To mark for closure because of one missing citation is something I can't accept. You can approve ALT1c, Maile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read: WP:AB section "The problem with autobiographies". For all the reasons contained therein. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I don't see a good reason why we can't just simply cite the book itself, especially if other sources confirm the information anyway. I've read that guideline and I don't really agree with what it says, personally I'm assuming good faith that what the author wrote is accurate. And in any case, the hook does not even focus on the author, but it's a hook fact about the book itself. When you have a hook that says "the book ends with...", I see no problem with using the book as a source, regardless of the authenticity of the subject matter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon: WP:AB is for Wikipedia articles that are autobiographies. This is a published book. We have sources saying it is. (Shaking head.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As you well know, I have provided a citation. It's the book James Acaster's Classic Scrapes. Let me know if you want the ISBN number, publication details, direct quotes etc. Perfectly happy to clear up any doubts you have about the factual accuracy of the hook. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We never said anything about doubting the accuracy of the hook. In fact, we even found other sources confirming the fact. All that was requested was for a footnote to be added to the relevant sentence. Now there is a legitimate question as to whether or not the rule is too strictly enforced (personally I think it is, but that's a topic for another time), but in this case, as there are outstanding concerns, it is better to just follow them than to ignore them. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the rule was created to verify that DYK facts are verifiably true and there are no doubts that the DYK fact is verifiably true, then I think you've answered the question above: 'Who is "wikilawyering"?' — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not wikilawyering, it's called "following the rules". Please Bilorv, please just do what is requested, so that the article can be promoted and this discussion can be done and over with. Just continuing this discussion would be a waste of time, better to do what is said than to go around in circles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Considering a lack of response from the nominator, we have two options here: 1. go with Gerda's proposal, as it avoids the plot point thing entirely and it uses a hook fact that already has an inline citation, or 2. an editor will have to boldly add the relevant citation (whether the book itself or one of the reviews) to the hook fact sentence about the cabbage incident. Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How do we move forward with this discussion? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Close this one as unsuccessful. Rather than simply providing an inline citation, the nominator either keeps arguing, or doesn't respond.  gave the nominator an easy solution when this first came up.  Per WT:DYK, other editors are in agreement that the citation should be provided. 1. — Maile  (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Couldn't it just be possible for another editor to make the required changes? Failing a DYK nomination just because of an easily resolvable issue doesn't seem very fair, especially when you consider that there are no other issues once this is done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Narutolovehinata5, if any editor—Bilorv, you, someone passing by—adds the necessary citations before this closes and lets us know here, then the nomination continues. If they don't, then it closes. Hook facts have always required specific referencing (something three sentences later, for example, was always deemed inadequate), and this isn't the first time such a cite was required for a "plot" point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (sorry for accidentally replying to the old version where I was pinged.)
 * You could approve ALT1c, for a starter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Any of you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Gerda (and as you know, I respect you a lot for your awesomeness!) it doesn't look to me like ALT1C meets the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement. The fact that the book is his autobiography is pretty much just its definition, and is not really "hooky" is it? I think the choice here is either to go with the cabbage incident, properly cited, or just to put this thing out of its misery - given that it's already been marked as "closed" twice. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, because I believe that the title itself is hooky. - Rather than having this closed I'd dig into where the ref was found, but have enough to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding ALT1c, I would also be cautious about any hook that could be interpreted as product placement, i.e. WP:PROMOTION. Especially when this is not an individual source citation, but proposed on the idea that the entire book is the source itself. Regardless of AGF, we do have admins who believe they are acting in Wikipedia's best interest by yanking a hook off the main page, and asking questions later.  Or not asking questions, but yanking it with only an edit summary. — Maile  (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We treat this like we do others. No hook source, no pass, no main page appearance. For whatever reason, no source has been provided. Instead, this nomination has wasted a lot of time of a lot of editors, but no source. — Maile (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a source. James Acaster's Classic Scrapes (ISBN 9781472247186). I've offered above and will offer again to provide any direct page numbers or quotes from the book to allay any doubts that the hook is factually incorrect. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that there are doubts about the accuracy of the source, the issue is that the source has not been added as a footnote to the relevant sentence. Please do this and this discussion will be finished. If you know the quote or the page number, what is preventing you from actually adding it to the article? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not my field of expertise, so here come a few mentionings of that cabbage (+ there's YouTube, and cabbages are on the title), and someone tell me please if reliable:
 * https://cannonballread.com/2018/09/when-i-was-a-baby-i-urinated-into-my-own-mouth/ (This book is perfect for people who like British thing, quirky humour, and long tales about cabbages.)
 * https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/6159692/james-acaster-repertoire-netflix-tv/
 * http://nsfordwriter.com/james-acasters-classic-scrapes/
 * teh book: https://books.google.de/books?id=sjLdDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT245
 * Have fun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an example of DYK editors spending far too much time rescuing a hook that the nominator has essentially given up on. We should really be using our time for other things. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt, the whole point here is that sources and a path forward have been provided, even before your list above; Bilorv simply won't add them despite being informed of DYK rules that require their addition. It's nice that you've offered up additional potential sources, but under the circumstances, absent that addition, it's moot. If the required sourcing supporting the hook fact is not in the article within 24 hours, I plan to close the nomination. It's taken up enough of everyone's time already. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am willing to add a source, but asked - was that unclear? - which one would be reliable. I have no idea in the field, and don't want to add to the article what would have to be removed as not reliable. Please! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with citing the book itself in this case. You can use the Cite book template to make things easier. As mentioned before, the issue isn't reliability of sources, but the nominator's apparent refusal to add a footnote to the sentence containing the hook fact. This entire discussion would have never happened if they had only done that action, which was requested early on. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I added two citations, and bite my tongue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is The Sun really an RS? Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No: in fact, The Sun is a deprecated source and should generally not be used as references in articles (see Perennial sources). The alternative, of course, is simply to cite the book itself: perhaps Bilorv is willing to provide the page number so that another editor could use that in the referencing? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't I ask exactly about that?? Some days I don't believe I can be understood here. Did you see that the other reference IS the book, only I didn't find the age of nine years there on the pages I can see. The page numbers I can see dealing with the prank are 247 to the end, already cited. The child's age was probably somewhere before, and I can't find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT4: ... that the autobiography James Acaster's Classic Scrapes ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your valiant efforts. But ALT1b is still the best hook, and since the page creator refuses to cite it, this nomination should be rejected. Enough already. Yoninah (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the age of the child mentioned in one of the refs already in the article, and added it. I'd prefer ALT4, though. Biting my tongue more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what discussion you're reading because it's certainly not the one on this page. Gerda Arendt has supplied two inline citations in the article which directly verify ALT1b; other editors above have acknowledged since the beginning of the discussion that the primary source of the book itself is a reliable source for the hook fact. Last I checked I didn't own the article or indeed the hook so rejecting Gerda Arendt's contributions to spite me directly seems like an odd move. And since has taken me up on my offer of supplying details—in my copy it's page 283, which says: "Mick is David's nine-year-old son." (in a chapter where, of course, Mick is discussed throughout as the boy involved in the cabbage-based pranks). — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg It seems that, after all this discussion, the cabbage part has finally been sourced. As this is the last remaining issue, it's time to put this discussion out of its misery and approve ALT1b. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)