Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking sign

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominated article was merged into Fucking, Austria on 28 April 2017; closing this nomination as the article no longer exists, and this should have been closed when the merge took place

Fucking sign

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Stop stealing this fucking sign!

• ... that people have sex in front of, then steal, this fucking sign? Source: Times of India

• Reviewed: John Blair (pastor) (two of two)
• Comment: For April Fools Day, could work well either without or without the sign used with it

Converted from a redirect by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 19:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough, 5X expansion. QPQ confirmed. Hook is neutral, cited, interesting, hooky and supported by Times of India article. All ¶ with citations. No copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Picture is properly licensed, used and clear at 100 pix. Earwig is clear, except for the common word. I agree, April Fool's Day would be a good time for this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• This article seems to essentially duplicate information contained in the Fucking, Austria article. I don't see any good reason for a standalone article on the sign itself. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not a reason to override the review, besides there is info in here that is not in the main Fucking article. If the reviewer felt that, he would have said so. , could you please restore the tick please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • This is another example of creating an article for the sake of it. The main Fucking, Austria article is by no means long enough to require a spin-off article about the sign itself to be created. I agree that this should not be passed, and any pertinent information be merged back into the main article. If necessary I'll tag the articles to propose the merger. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
      • No it isn't, it is an article about the most stolen street sign in the world and has more info on the sign itself than the Fucking article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
        • It should be merged into the main article, there's no need at all for a standalone article here. I agree this should not be passed. I will tag the articles for merging. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

90% of the content in this article is a regurgitation of information in the locality article, so either the rest should be moved to the locality article, or the info about the sign in the locality article should be mostly moved here. Either way, there is not enough original content in this article for it to qualify for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. There is sufficient original content for the sign article to exist as pursuant to GNG, there is enough info on the sign for it to have its own article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm undecided as to whether or not an article on the sign itself should exist, although I'm leaning to the view that it shouldn't. My main objection, as already stated, is that this article contains next to no new information, so it's ineligible for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. There is no copying of text from the Fucking article, it is unique writing and you are trying to use the COPYVIO regulations here where it is not appropriate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with copyvio, it has to do with content. There is next to no new content in the sign article, regardless of whether or not the text itself is the same. We don't have two articles on wikipedia covering the same content, that is grounds for a merge. Gatoclass (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Its not the same. One is about a village, the other about the most stolen sign in the world which just so happens to be connected to the village. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and all the info about the sign in the sign article has been in the locality article for years. There is no new information in the sign article, therefore it isn't eligible for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is as it involves the most stolen sign info and the advice and stats on how to steal the sign. I'm happy to let the merge discussion take its course, I am disappointed this is being removed from AFD as it was prime grounds for it. But I firmly believe it is eligible for DYK, after all the original reviewer would have said that had he felt the same as you did. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment IMO, this is a different article on a related subject. Compare write does not show the copying you apparently allege. If User:The C of E had copied, i.e. cut and paste, I am sure he would have indicated in his edit summary and the talk page. Those are not there. When I reviewed it there was no Merge or Delete template on it. So far as I know, this is within guidelines for eligibility for a WP:DYK, and I so indicated. The Rambling Man, and Gatoclass if you have a rule to the contrary, please bring it forward. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  I didn't say the content was cut-and-pasted, did I? I also have no interest in this DYK nomination, but I do have an interest in those who create unnecessary content forks in order to create DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• So you actually don't have a rule or a written policy? It's just because ...  ? Ipse dixit? I read the rules and applied them.

I can't control the posting of a merge template after my review. The merits of that proposal will (I suppose) have to be determined. The DYK rules also say: DYK nominations for articles at WP:AfD should be held pending the outcome of the deletion discussion. If the article is retained, the DYK nomination can proceed, and of course, if deleted, the DYK nomination must be rejected.

But it doesn't change my review, which applied the DYK rules. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you at all. I've already said it's not about DYK, it's about a wider issue, that of creating pseudo-forks where they are simply not required. See Wikipedia:Splitting for more information. It may not be that there's a "rule" and no-one is criticising your review, it's simply that the article you reviewed should not have existed in the first place. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And Gatoclass if you have a rule to the contrary, please bring it forward. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As you said, you are not questioning my review. Thank you.

As I said, the existence of the AFD or Merge template (and the outcome of the discussion) is a separate matter in a separate forum. The rule is explicit. If it survives then it runs. If it is deleted, then it doesn't. And that is about DYK, but it is an automatic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you're arguing the same point, and that's a waste of both of our time, so I'll leave it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, final thought, the talk page of the town article says this DYK ran in 2009:

"... that the Austrian town of Fucking installed theft-resistant road signs in 2005 because the signs were frequently stolen by tourists?""

So why should we run this twice? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Different article; different hook.

By definition, the existence of similar hooks in different articles is no bar. These are different article. "Check that the article hasn't been featured on the Main Page's In the news section and hasn't previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in an earlier DYK. (Articles that have been only linked from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.)" [Emphasis added.]

In any event, if the new disputed template discussion is a Merge or a Keep, then the other quoted rule takes precedence. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

But if we are all being honest with ourselves, it's effectively the same hook and effectively the same article. It's really pushing it to claim this is new material and a new article I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We waste more time arguing over these Fucking articles.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've been through this "new" article (disclosure: I wrote much of Fucking, Austria) and there is literally no information in it that is not already in the parent article. It's blatantly in violation of Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria #1 - it "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article". Actually, it's worse than that, it's not even a spin-off but merely a paraphrased duplicate of a big chunk of the parent article. I get the impression that the author wrote it just for the sake of prefixing "Fucking" to as many things as possible - residents, officials, taxpayers etc. There's also no reason to suppose that the sign has any notability independent of the place. Quite simply, this article should not exist, let alone be featured on DYK. Prioryman

(talk) 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We have a new template on this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucking sign tendentiously brought to you by Prioryman. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is it "tendentious"? It's a pretty straightforward case of formalising what has been said here, there's little to support a standalone article on the sign itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Or did you mean 'why was it tendentious?' Too much drama. Too personal in tone, went above and beyond requirements. We can do business without this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that, I mean "why is the nomination tendentious?" as I said. This kind of problem arises when people appear to miss the logical explanations given to them, which is becoming clear at the AFD. Creating micro-articles based on one minor aspect of another minor article for the purpose of gaining a DYK credit (when even in the face of the fact that such a DYK has already run, albeit vaguely differently, some years ago) is not the way to build an encyclopedia. There are only so many ways that it can be said, and those ways have been exhausted. Hence we are where we are. We clearly cannot do business without taking formal routes, as nothing was changing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I predicted here these arguments and their tenor. I do not think this a good thing. Formal routes are fine; but we've descended below that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess that's the problem, as I say, when logic is ignored, time after time after time, and DYK rules are somehow held in higher esteem that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As the rule clearly states, as the templates are resolved, so is the DYK. This obviates the apparent conflict. Full stop. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There's an AFD template on this nominated article. That's hardly "resolved". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I am sending but you are not understanding. I did not say that they had been resolved.

I said that the rule requires them to be resolved before the DYK can proceed. The DYK rules also say: DYK nominations for articles at WP:AfD should be held pending the outcome of the deletion discussion. If the article is retained, the DYK nomination can proceed, and of course, if deleted, the DYK nomination must be rejected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am confused. In one sentence you say "As the rule clearly states, as the templates are resolved, so is the DYK" yet your subsequent post you say "I did not say that they had been resolved." That's the problem with text communication like this. The DYK cannot proceed now unless the article is kept, which is looking very unlikely. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not the forum to speculate on the AFD discussion. You have made your position clear here. But you are one voice. When that is resolved we can deal with its effect. Later. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't resolve the conflicting posts you made just one sentence apart. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It resolves it for me. Conflict is apparent, not real. There is a method under the rule, with consequences. I would repeat that, but putting it in bold face capital letters would look like I AM SHOUTING. And I'm not. Patience. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well you certainly lost me. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is definitely ineligible for April 1st DYK, and I'm very confident ineligible for any DYK at all.

1. April 1st: Current AFD will not expire before April 1st. Legitimate AFD, no reason to close early, especially since delete votes currently predominate.
2. DYK in general: Violates Rule #1b, text is predominantly split off material, so shouldn't have been approved in the first place
3. DYK in general: A DYK about this sign (linked to the main article name) with a similar hook was already used in November 2009.
4. Not rewarding unethical behavior: In addition, the time between nomination and approval was 12 minutes, evidence of off-wiki coordination for approval. Not sure if this is actually against DYK rules or not, but it certainly looks extraordinarily tacky from outside the DYK universe. This coordination may explain why something that clearly does not meet the criteria was approved

I don't understand the tick/no tick system, but I'm removing this from "verified" section of April 1st DYK page, and will remove it from the Main Page if it somehow makes it on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Your accusations of "off wiki cooperation" are unfounded. You have no evidence. Please retract. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

We're not idiots. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam Please retract. I did not call you an idiot. Indeed, I won't do it. But you are being intractable and untoward. You have taken a long walk off a short pier.

I might add that the DYK is stayed now pending resolution of the AFD. So you are in a tither over nothing of consequence. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there's sufficient evidence presented above to remove this from the noms as failed regardless of the outcome of the AFD. So that's the consequence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that you don't want to wait on the AFD outcome. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, it's better to quit now and stop wasting the community's time over this for a DYK when regardless of the AFD outcome, it's clear it's invalid for DYK. Let me reiterate, it's not your review that's being criticised, but there is a deeper issue here, that of gaming the system to create spin-off articles just for the purpose of DYK credits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight. If the DYK runs it runs. If it doesn't it doesn't. So there is no consequence for me (except for being defamed). I did a review, made an honest appraisal, and await the outcome of the newly posted templates. And I don't think that the benefit of this discussion outweighs the harm it produced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had a further look at the editing history following Floquenbeam's comments; I think s/he's onto something here. The article was created at 19:14, 19 March 2017 by The C of E and nominated for DYK at 19:21. The first of many edits was made at 19:27 by 7&6=thirteen, who then approved it at 19:33. Both editors have been outspoken in defending the article here and at AfD - which is to be expected of an article's creator, but not of an ostensibly neutral reviewer. While this doesn't by itself demonstrate off-wiki collusion, the unusual brevity of the process and the two editors' conduct since does make me think that something untoward has been going on here. Prioryman (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Well then you're the quickest reviewer in the history of DYK and there's no issue. I suggest we move along, this line of pursuit isn't going to achieve anything, it's clear that many people "help each other out" on Wikipedia, whether this is a case of that or not is neither here nor there in this situation, the article is not suitable for DYK right now, so let's just close this down and move on to other things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No "helping out." Neutral review. I could be wrong, but ... Can't be held to predicting a template that was not yet on the page. And as I repeatedly tried to explain to you, the template trumps (no pun intended) the review, or at least suspends the DYK. And you repeatedly said you didn't understand.

Your unwarranted personal attacks are not welcomed by me. I've done damn near 200 DYK reviews, and there is no fucking collusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, please let me know which comment(s) are "unwarranted personal attacks". That's a serious accusation. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think the suggestion of collusion here smacks of ABF and is unwarranted. This nomination was added to the nominations page five minutes before 7&6 edited it. I can't speak for the user, but I know that I have on many occasions seen an intriguing new nomination pop up on my watchlist and gone and reviewed it right away, and I suspect that is what happened here. I note that 7&6 hasn't reviewed any of the C of E's other April Fools nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me make it very clear, that there is no "collusion" or off wiki nonsense going on here. If you check both our talk pages, I did not ask 7&6 to review it for me in any way shape or form. I have not emailed him asking for it and I have not contacted him anywhere else and asked for it. I put this in the edit summary when I put it on the nominations page, which clearly included a link for a speedy review as I always do. What I believe happened here was that 7&6 saw it and reviewed it the same as anyone else would for any other nomination if it is interesting and pops up on the watchlist. I also feel that it is completely unwarranted to accuse me of something like that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's just a coincidence, I'm sure. Let's not that derail this discussion which is about the suitability (or otherwise) of this for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, User:The Rambling Man you are being dense. Deliberately or not. I'm through with you and this discussion. WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I made a request to get the topic back on track, you just chose the personal attack route. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So we are clear, I was responding to your earlier question: "With all due respect, please let me know which comment(s) are "unwarranted personal attacks". That's a serious accusation. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)" I agree, the DYK and the deletions should be decided on merit, not ad hominem attack. I accept that you have offered an armistice. I concur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Old AfD multi|page=Fucking sign|date=27 March 2017|result=No consensus to delete 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Review Deletion was resolved. Someone might want to sort through who you want to credit, if anyone, beyond the original creator/nominator. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal has been restarted, the AFD clearly showed a strong consensus to merge whatever unique info that was in the sign article into the town article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Forum shopping. Talk about a rush to judgment and forum shopping. Prioryman even showed his contempt for this ongoing discussion with this edit. Wow! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This DYK nom is irrelevant in the bigger picture, please keep the false accusations in one place. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative facts rise again. this edit speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No alternative facts, the Wikipedia comes before a DYK nomination. Thanks for the Latin. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no point in anyone editing this DYK discussion further, as the nomination has been rejected and the fake article is not going to appear on DYK. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Prioryman has spoken. Ipse dixit.

Prioryman even showed his contempt for this ongoing discussion with this edit The ongoing merger discussion was not preempted by your peremptory redirect. Until that is resolved, the DYK nomination exists. This was not a "fake" article. Even if you say otherwise. You cannot bury the truth by invoking cloture. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the Latin. I would suggest that Prioryman was being bold when it's abundantly clear from the AFD that the over-whelming consensus was to delete or merge, regardless of the peculiar "official" outcome. The article is fake, it is almost 100% drawn from the town article. Hence the reason it should not exist. QED. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is merged, then you have an argument. But you again have put the cart before the horse. I'll let someone else explain that to you.

You are telling me that the ongoing merger discussion, which you reopened, is just a charade.

If you are so confident of the merger proposal, then let it play out. And don't simply tell everybody it is done, there is 'nothing to see here,' and 'shut up.'

Nobody appointed either of you dictator. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall telling you the merger discussion is a charade. Can you supply a diff? The merger should have been sanctioned at the AFD but the closing admin chose a bizarre opt-out. Nobody appointed anyone dictator, what a curious thing to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)