Template:Did you know nominations/The Last Proletarians of Football

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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Last Proletarians of Football

(

)

... that the early DVD release of The Last Proletarians of Football was shipped with a pennant claiming that Hamburger SV won the 1982 UEFA Cup Final, even though the team lost the final?

Reviewed: Battle of Islandbridge

Created by Johan Elisson (talk). Self nominated at 23:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Date and length fine. AGF on foreign language source. I have made a minor edit to the hook to bring it more into line with what the article says. QPQ done. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The hook fact is not cited with an inline cite; it is part of the completely unsourced Synopsis section. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The hook fact is cited in the "Release" section. – Elisson • T • C • 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it says and is cited that the DVD was released with a pennant, but the part about the pennant claiming that Hamburger SV won the 1982 UEFA Cup Final, even though it didn't, has no cite. Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The referenced text makes a cross-reference to the synopsis section where the pennant is described, the referenced sources themselves contain the necessary information and covers the facts. I feel it is completely unnecessary to duplicate the information on exactly what the pennant looked like and write it all again in the "Release" section when it already is in the "Synopsis" section. And synopsis sections should generally not be referenced. Please give me a good alternative and I will gladly make the amendments needed. – Elisson • T • C • 10:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not just add a cite in the Synopsis section? You could remove it after the DYK hook leaves the Main Page. Yoninah (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucracy... great stuff. I've slightly edited the referenced sentence. Enough? Or do you want me to reference the fact that Hamburger SV did not win the 1982 UEFA Cup as well? Yes, I'm grumpy, because I hate bureaucracy when it doesn't improve the content. – Elisson • T • C • 16:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's really not me, it's Rule #3b. Your recent editing covers the first part of the hook, not the second. What's wrong with adding a few cites in the Synopsis? Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not you, it's "bureaucracy". This is just getting ridiculous. I refuse to take this any further. Asking to cover the second part of the hook (that Hamburger SV did not win the final) with a reference would be like asking for a reference to cover the fact that, say, Sweden is a European country (for the ficticious hook "... a pennant claiming that Sweden is a country situated in Africa, even though it is a European country"). I would like to get a second opinion on this. Why I won't adding references to the synopsis? Because another set of guidelines say that I shouldn't. That's why. This is the shit that made me take a long break from Wikipedia a while ago (and the reason I no longer submit to WP:FAC). The overly finicky processes and attitudes that has completely forgotten about the actual content, and just focuses on rules. – Elisson • T • C • 11:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hook is sourced to ref #5 (fourth paragraph, last point according to translate). The last part of the hook ('even though the team lost the final') can be omitted if contentious. A plot synopsis is a documentary film's equivalent of a plot summary and should be covered under rule D2, if not cited to the primary source (i.e. the subject of the article). Passing this based on The C of E's review. Fuebaey (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)