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) 06:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@The C of E: I don't see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. It's not that uncommon for sports teams to play games in smaller-than-normal stadiums (like DC United's occasional home games in Maryland, Seattle Sounders FC sometimes playing in its training ground, or the Los Angeles Chargers playing at a soccer-specific stadium). In addition, I feel that the hook is not interesting to non-rugby fans, and as far as I am aware, it's not uncommon for stadiums to host both union and league, and in any case the hook feels rambling. How about something simply something like "the London Broncos will play their rugby league game at a rugby union stadium?" or something to that effect? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: No, I think that this hook has sufficient interest and I don't see any reason to change it. I think the general public might find it interesting in that there will be a club that has allowed to play their matches in a stadium smaller than the league's regulations. indeed your proposed alt is basically the same as my original just without the mention of that fact so I am happy to stick with the one I have proposed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid your proposed hook is not interesting to a broad audience. Like audiences wouldn't really care about stadium sizes and the like; I'm pretty sure we've discussed something similar to this before. And in many parts of the world, smaller stadiums are the norm, not the exception. Perhaps if the RFL was a well-known league worldwide like the NFL, the Premiere League, or the IPL, but the RFL is much more niche. As such, I've gone ahead and struck the hook. Also, I'd also like to ask the opinions of fellow sports article contributor Hawkeye7 on their thoughts on both the article and the hook. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the hook is fine as it is and as I mentioned above your proposal is exactly the same as the original (less the reference to size) so what is the difference. I'm not prepared to change it at this so have unstruck it for another reviewer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Once a hook has been struck, it can't normally be unstruck by the nominator, only by a reviewer; I have re-struck the hook, please do not unstrike unless me, Hawkeye7, or another editor says so. I'd wait for a second opinion here on whether or not it's appropriate, but for now, a new hook is needed. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 06:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you'll find that under WP:DYKRULES, there is no such rule that says that. As such, I am unstriking and prepared to wait for a new reviewer. It is certainly appropriate as it is accurate and sourced inline in the article. Subjective opinions on if it is interesting are irrelevant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You may wish to read the comment left by BlueMoonset on Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, specifically the quote he certainly should not be unstriking any hook struck by a reviewer. With that said, I will request a second review over a WT:DYK on hook interest and will leave the hook unstruck for now while waiting for other opinions. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 15:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Restruck per TRM's comment. Please propose a new hook. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 23:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Adding an icon reflective of a nomination without an unstruck hook. If The C of E doesn't wish to provide a new hook, then they can always withdraw the nomination. No one gets to insist on keeping their hook in the face of reviewer agreement that there are problems with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The issue here is that it is going to be very difficult to find an interesting hook when there is so little information in the article other than the utterly routine stuff such as the format of the league and the teams in it - hardly surprising as the season hasn’t even started yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Pawnkingthree: Per discussions on Discord and reading through the article again, would this work?
ALT1 ... that rugby league's Super League XXIV will feature a top five play-offs system?" Apparently such systems aren't actually unusual in rugby (given that the format has an article), but as a non-rugby fan, I kind of found that fact interesting since most playoff formats involve an even number of teams. Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's go with ALT1. Top five playoffs are fairly common in Australia, but unusual elsewhere. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, Hawkeye7, source 3 appears to be talking about the top five playoffs system being reintroduced for promotion of one Championship League team to the Super League at the end of a season (taking the place of the Super League team with the worst record, which is relegated to the Championship League). So ALT1 is not properly sourced. The Championship League had an eight-team playoff through 2018; Super League abandoned their eight-team playoff in 2015 for a four-team playoff system if one is to believe the Super League play-offs article. That same article notes that the top five system was used from 1998 through 2001, and that fact, if it can be supported (no sourcing in the article), might make a good hook:
Reading between the lines of the Super League play-offs article, 1998 was the year of Super League III, the first year there were playoffs in Super League, and it was the top-five version that's being used anew in 2019. Again, if sourcing can be found (the only source used for Super League III is behind a paywall, and I can't check it), an even more interesting hook would be possible:
Would someone know where to find the necessary sourcing and be able to make the necessary additions to the article for these hooks to be supported, assuming they're deemed interesting enough? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
So the playing in another club's ground with permission is more boring than the playoff format? I'd have thought that would have had even less of a "broad" reach plus I find them boring therefore I do not accept these proposals so I am striking them. I am prepared to amend my hook by adding a geographical indicator to make it more "interesting":
ALT4 ... that the London Broncos will play in rugby league's predominately Northern England based Super League XXIV in a rugby union stadium smaller than RFL standards?The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That does not make the hook any more interesting in my opinion. The ALT2 and ALT3 are marginally better. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, I am very aware that you really want to stick with your proposal on stadium size, but multiple reviewers here have already stated that it is not a good option. ALT4 is just as bland as the original and arguably even more inaccessible, because let's face it, the average reader is unlikely to be one that cares about RFL standards or Northern England. I am unstriking ALT2 and ALT3 and have struck ALT4 as not addressing reviewer concerns; please do not revert unless told to by a reviewer, as this is considered going against reviewer consensus. I will also make a request at WT:DYK for an uninvolved editor to make the full review here. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not really a good hook either, although it's probably a better option than ALT0 and ALT4. The problem is that promotion and relegation isn't unusual at all and most readers would be unfamiliar with either team. With that said, the opinions of previous reviewers @Pawnkingthree, BlueMoonset, Hawkeye7, and The Rambling Man: would still be appreciated here, since this is a new proposal. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 15:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Fail. There's nothing interesting in a league that's yet to start, no matter how contrived anyone tries to make it. Send in Vanamonde93 to find something here given he's solely in charge of what is and what is not interesting, despite allowing dozens of hooks go through to the main page, including those which are on the main page today, apart from just one that I was involved with. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This is getting rather tiresome: there was absolutely no cause to ping me here. I have pulled hooks for reasons of interest on several occasions. I do so typically when I promote a prep to queue, or promote a special occasion hook, which is what brought me to your hook. If you think I'm giving you special attention, I'm flattered, but I don't have that sort of time. FTR, the original hook is not interesting to a broad audience. Vanamonde (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yet this so-called admin who has seen "more football than most" deems other hooks instantly boring? Wow. This may be tiresome, but this is the lot you have chosen. Fail this, and I will continually question Vanamonde93 as to why every boring hook that gets through hasn't been pulled. That's reasonable given the short shrift the hook I proposed was given, yet pulled and then replaced with a bunch of shit, without any kind of apology. Even now. So, that's your lot Vanamonde, deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That makes no sense. I will pull hooks only when I review them at some stage of the process. If you think I ought to check every hook posted to the main page, please think again. Vanamonde (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
No, of course, you only check the hooks you read. Revelation. So this hook falls squarely, more squarely, into Vanamonde's "not interesting" loop, and certainly mine too. Fail this nomination, move on. Looking forward to the next revelation from this admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
So you didn't have a good reason to ping me, because I was uninvolved, and you were not asking for my input. Please don't ping me under those circumstances again. Vanamonde (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Please don't act unilaterally against consensus and introduce errors at the last moment. Please approach DYK consistently. Please try harder. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with TRM that there is fundamentally nothing interesting that can be said about a league that has yet to start. I don't find the fact that there's one London based team and the rest are northern interesting enough for a broad audience. Not every new article is suitable for DYK and I think this should be failed.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: I disagree. Just because something is new doesn't mean that it can't be suitable for DYK. Yes the league has yet to begin, that doesn't mean something can't be said about it. For example, I actually like the part about that Top 5 playoffs; as mentioned above, it appears to be common in Australia but not elsewhere, and as a sports fan I found it unusual that their playoffs system had an odd number of teams. With that said, I'd like to hear your thoughts on ALT2 and ALT3; if you don't like them, I'd like to hear The C of E's thoughts one more time, and if we can't get into an agreement, I'm willing to fail this. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 21:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Sigh* I see I have little choice, I for the life of me cannot see how a hook about a playoff format is more interesting than the fact we had a London team fighting it out with a Canadian team for a place in a mostly Northern competition. I'd still prefer one of my hooks but I regrettably won't object if they use one of the others. It's this sort of thing that made me take a brief hiatus from DYK because I used to enjoy doing it; it relaxed me not stressed me out as it does with this sort of thing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I'm not thrilled about a format-based hook but If you like the playoff suggestions and C of E won't object, it does seem to be the best we have. I would say that ALT 3 is the marginally better one. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, as I pointed out when I suggested the ALT2 and ALT3 hooks, reliable sourcing will need to be found for these facts; some facts and sourcing are not in the article now, nor are the sourced in the various league season articles here on Wikipedia where I found said facts. There hasn't been any attempt to source them in the nominated article, so unless that attempt is made, this could all be moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@The C of E: It's been almost two weeks since the last discussion here, and consensus appears to be leaning towards either ALT2 and ALT3. Would it be okay with you to address the sourcing issues so that this nomination can move forward? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 03:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Please address the sourcing issues so that this can proceed. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, it's been a week. Last call to address the sourcing issues for those hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I have added a source to it, I still object to this hijacking of the nomination and still feel that one of my original proposed hooks are better because I still do not believe the playoff hook is more interesting than either the stadium or team hooks I proposed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The article looks better now and it appears that whatever can be sourced has been sourced. The "Teams" section seems to lack references, but I'm willing to let that pass as long as each statement is verified in each team's article (though to be on the safe side, a single general reference, perhaps to the league's website or an official stats site, could also be added here). The same for the tables, which right now are empty. As for the hook suggestions, it was not a "hijacking" but rather a reflection of consensus; although the stadium size hooks was greatly preferred by the nominator, consensus determined that they were not interesting enough to a broad audience and thus had to be substituted with different proposals. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 09:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: The teams section is referenced but I have added an extra source for it. What happens in other articles is irrelevant to this nomination. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Overall: I'm suggesting an ALT6 here since it's cited properly. What do you think The C of E? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@The C of E: I don't see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. It's not that uncommon for sports teams to play games in smaller-than-normal stadiums (like DC United's occasional home games in Maryland, Seattle Sounders FC sometimes playing in its training ground, or the Los Angeles Chargers playing at a soccer-specific stadium). In addition, I feel that the hook is not interesting to non-rugby fans, and as far as I am aware, it's not uncommon for stadiums to host both union and league, and in any case the hook feels rambling. How about something simply something like "the London Broncos will play their rugby league game at a rugby union stadium?" or something to that effect? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Adding an icon reflective of a nomination without an unstruck hook. If The C of E doesn't wish to provide a new hook, then they can always withdraw the nomination. No one gets to insist on keeping their hook in the face of reviewer agreement that there are problems with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I will also make a request at WT:DYK for an uninvolved editor to make the full review here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm suggesting an ALT6 here since it's cited properly. What do you think The C of E? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
