Talk:You Jump, I Jump, Jack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Yoninah (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 22:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • The hook that is provided looks good with a book source that is AGF. The article is new and long enough. QPQ has been done. The outstanding issue here is that the article's plot section doesn't have any inline citations at all. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 06:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mccunicano: see MOS:PLOT, Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. — Bilorv (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for highlighting that bit of the MOS for me. I'll go ahead and give this an AGF tick for the book source. I'm not really familiar with writing about fictional material, so you directing my attention to that point is a huge help. Good work. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 11:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bilorv: From what I understand, people without an article (Nick Holmes) shouldn't be mentioned in a hook. Pinging Yoninah in case I have it wrong. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see this in the supplementary guidelines (or rules) and if the intention is privacy of BLPs then I would expect no such issue with an actor (he's still an active actor, I believe, though likely not notable). The hook is not meant to read negatively or reflect badly on Holmes, either. — Bilorv (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bilorv I don't understand either, but I have seen this happen repeatedly and I was whined at before for some dead guy in a hook not having an article (so I had to quickly create at least a stub). It's not just people, but books and such for some reason. I'm tagging Yoninah as the more experienced DYK contributor though. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also interested to see what Yoninah has to say about the matter. Hopefully this doesn't impact the eligibility of the hook. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 11:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have gotten called out on this by someone at ERRORS so often that we just try not to mention someone on the main page if s/he doesn't have a Wikipedia article. The easy solution? Write a stub for him to give him a blue link. Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: if there is consensus on this issue, can you point me to it? You say that we "try not to" but can you point to an actual reason in the specific case of an actor who has no reasonable expectation of privacy and a hook with no negative material? The "solution" is not such in this case because I do not believe the actor notable. — Bilorv (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah Since that's the reason, I don't agree with it. Why should one editor control the DYK process in such a way? Maybe a discussion on the DYK talk page is needed. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging the hook on its own merit, it is showcasing a non-notable actor in a non-notable role. Could you suggest a different hook? This pops out at me:
  • ALT1: ... that "You Jump, I Jump, Jack", a season 5 episode of Gilmore Girls, alludes to the 1976 film All the President's Men among its journalistic references?
  • There seems to be more information in the source about the journalistic references in the episodes, which could be added to the article to satisfy the reader's interest when he clicks on the hook. Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: the "its" in "among its journalistic references" is either ambiguous or refers to the episode, but the fact refers to the series Gilmore Girls as a whole (the particular episode doesn't necessarily feature many more separate journalism pop culture references). To me this wouldn't strike me as interesting because one of the defining styles of Gilmore Girls is heavy reference to pop culture, but if we're targeting the hook at people who don't know the show well (but probably will know All the President's Men) then that's sensible enough. If this is still interesting to you or can be reworded as such then go for it, I'm happy to have it as a hook and kudos for making a concrete suggestion. I've fleshed out the description in the article as much as can be reliably sourced in case we go with it. Here's another idea if you want it:

(The idea of the "hook" to this is that one might ask "why start with a season 5 episode?" or "why did Czuchry think this episode is important", answered by his quote in the article, that it "defines the relationship between Logan and Rory".) — Bilorv (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Approve ALTs 1 & 2. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:You_Jump,_I_Jump,_Jack&oldid=1198666357"