Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves

Dick Graves

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that though his cock was grabbed, experts said that Dick's was exquisite? Source: https://qz.com/1002767/gold-price-why-the-us-government-once-sued-a-nevada-casino-over-a-14-pound-solid-gold-rooster/
  • ALT1: ... that experts said that Dick's golden cock was exquisite? Source: https://qz.com/1002767/gold-price-why-the-us-government-once-sued-a-nevada-casino-over-a-14-pound-solid-gold-rooster/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Great North Bog
  • Comment: For April Fools Day.

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 07:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

• Interesting article and subject, but I am feeling prudish about either hook on the main page. Bruxton (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We had an ahegao face on DYK like last month, I think a penis joke or two on AFD is fine. Juxlos (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• We ran a cock joke about the exact same case last April Fools' Day: surely we don't need a repeat performance? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think the typical reader (or editor) remembers the exact article related to a Wikipedia dick joke from a year ago. Juxlos (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Given that the paragraph the hook is taken from was deliberately written in an unencyclopedic style in order to unnecessarily include seven instances of the word "cock" in a single paragraph, none of which are needed or appropriate, this is a problematic nomination from the start, and has been included in a discussion at WT:DYK. The paragraph has been revised to improve its accuracy and replace "cock" with "rooster"—the bird was created to help draw attention to the casino's "Golden Rooster Room" restaurant—and I rather doubt that either of the hooks will ultimately be allowed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Strike both hooks. Offensive material should function kind of like fair use: minimal use (including "only use if strictly necessary"), clear encyclopedic purpose, and clear signaling from sources that using the offensive material is important. These hooks fail all three of those tests—DYK cannot be a repository of uncle jokes that lack encyclopedic value. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Article is new enough, long enough, sourced, neutral, and plagiarism free. I'm vetoing both hooks as the reviewer; a QPQ has been done. New hooks will be needed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
        • What was wrong with them from a policy standpoint @Theleekycauldron:? ALT2 ... that some dick sold a casino without getting the sale written down? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I'll approve ALT2 for April Fools' Day! As I said above, I think that offensive material should be used minimally (WP:GRATUITOUS), and while there's some leeway on that for April Fools' (United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster), the first two seem a bit far. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
            • leeky I don't think that's much of an improvement. I would object to something as infantile as mocking a man's name, even on April Fools Day. That hook was specifically mentioned by Fram in his ANI complaint. What about something like, ALT3 "... that Dick Graves paid a man to sit on top of a 60-foot pole for seven months to promote his casino?" Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
              • Hi there, Pawnkingthree! I'll approve ALT3 in good faith for normal running (not AFD); if this is the best way to move forward for everyone, I won't make too big a fuss. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
                • theleekycauldron, I've struck ALT2; I'm another who objects to the hook as phrased. It doesn't seem likely that an April Fools hook can be constructed from this article, but I'm glad that Dick Graves will get a chance at the main page; he seems to have been an interesting person. If an acceptable AFD hook doesn't come along in the next few days, I'll move this nomination back to the Approved page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
                  • No objections, @BlueMoonset: looks I slightly misread some past nominations to get to the judgement I did anyways. :D I've got no other suggestions re: April Fools. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 15:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)