Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Armstrong (priest)
- The following discussion 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Peter Armstrong (priest)[edit]
- ... that prior to winning 5 Super Bowl rings with the 49ers, Peter Armstrong was ordained a Roman Catholic Priest?
Created/expanded by Balloonman (talk). Self nom at 15:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It was pointed out to me elsewhere that he didn't really win them: Alt1 that Peter Armstrong was ordained a Roman Catholic Priest before earning any of his five Super Bowl rings with the 49ers?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Howabout: ALT2 ... that a Roman Catholic priest owns five Super Bowl rings?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like it as much because merely owning the rings says nothing. Did he buy them? Were they given to him by a player(s)? Did a former NFL player get ordained after winning 5? Just saying that somebody owns the rings doesn't say anything that makes it April Fools worthy. What makes this April Fools worthy is something that goesto the question, "how did an Ordained priest earn/win/receive 5 Super Bowl Rings with the SF 49ers?"---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think saying that a priest has five Super Bowl rings and being ambiguous as to how he got it is the hook. Think of this way; you and I are at a sports bar. I blurt out "Oh yeah, did ya know a priest has 5 Super Bowl Rings?" The simple comment is attention grabbing and causes people to take notice. Plus merely saying makes some people go "You talking bullshit.....really?" The simple comment sounds plausible, yet there is that bit of skepticism that stems from the comment possibly being a joke. Given the typical stereotypes of Priests, that "knowledge" also plays into peoples perceptions of whether or not they consider the comment/statement as fact or fiction. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like it as much because merely owning the rings says nothing. Did he buy them? Were they given to him by a player(s)? Did a former NFL player get ordained after winning 5? Just saying that somebody owns the rings doesn't say anything that makes it April Fools worthy. What makes this April Fools worthy is something that goesto the question, "how did an Ordained priest earn/win/receive 5 Super Bowl Rings with the SF 49ers?"---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
How about: ALT3 ... that a Roman Catholic priest got five Super Bowl rings while with the 49'ers? I think the fact that they are his rings is important.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Finalize it as: ... that a Roman Catholic priest got five Super Bowl rings while with the 49'ers? The source looks good and I think it's ready to go.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Can someone move this to below, something is not right here. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. The "passed" parameter should only be filled in when the discussion is completely closed, the hook is either promoted or rejected, and the template is subst'ed; it is not used to indicate verification of a hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Minor change: ... that a Roman Catholic priest got five Super Bowl rings with the 49'ers?
get rid of the "while with", it was a tongue twister that way, make it just "with".---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)