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 Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Overall: Approved for April 1st. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
What's April Foolsy about this hook? Nothing that I can see. It might be okay as a quirky in a standard set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Does the joke really need to be explained? "Genius" is WP:PUFFERY. Wikipedia would never state that "John Lennon is brilliant" or "Elvis is the best" like it's an uncontested fact. The article is actually about a promotional slogan. --Ilovetopaint (talk)
A lot of people think Brian Wilson is a genius, and his "genius", or lack of it, has clearly been written about at length as the article demonstrates. So the hook is not obviously "puffery", but even if it were, that wouldn't make it funny, unless perhaps the subject was a well-known idiot clearly undeserving of the title, which is not the case here. Gatoclass (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't know, I think it would be obviously tongue-in-cheek for an encyclopedia to declare someone a "genius". It's a bombastic claim, especially when attributed to a pop songwriter. Not very NPOV.--Ilovetopaint (talk)
An April Fools hook has to be more than just "tongue in cheek". It has to present a fact that on the face of it is outrageous, incredible or sensational. Usually this is achieved by deceptive phraseology (example: "that Obama was born in Japan?"). "Brian Wilson is a genius" in my opinion doesn't fit the mold, because a lot of people I'm sure consider him a genius already, or else wouldn't be surprised to hear that others consider him to be one. So I think this hook would look out of place in an April Fools set. Gatoclass (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree after looking at the accepted AFDYKs from previous years. Not all of them follow that formula. For example: "...that Judge Rinder is not a judge?"" and "... that an 1897 monograph by French artist Alphonse Allais included the print Dance of drunks in the fog (pictured)?". [1] Seems to me "Brian Wilson is a genius" would fit right beside those. The hook is deceptive because it's a promotional campaign, not a statement of fact, and it's sensational because it's merely an opinion. --Ilovetopaint (talk)
My previous post was an off-the-cuff attempt to summarize the salient features of the ideal April Fools hook, but a word I might have used as an alternative is that the hook should cause a degree of astonishment, at least momentarily. Judge Rinder fits the bill because it's apparently self-contradictory. "Dance of drunks in the fog" is astonishing in a different way. What is astonishing about "Brian Wilson is a genius"? It didn't surprise me in the slightest since I've heard the same thing said 1000 times over and I'm at best a casual fan of the band, having never even bought a single Beach Boys recording.
Additionally, including a hook like this in an April Fools set is to suggest that it is ludicrous to think Wilson is a genius. In effect, you are holding him up to ridicule, which is not a good look for Wikipedia and arguably borders on a breach of BLP. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that this hook seems 'astonishing' to some of us Wikipedians because we are Wikipedians. To us it is astonishing because we know that the wiki shouldn't be engaging in puffery like this, so it is a surprise to see it. Regular readers are used to language like this from media and other sources, so it doesn't seem astonishing at all. Maybe ok as a non April fools hook, I don't know, but not april foolsy enough. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 08:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
April 1 is already here so may as well go back to the original.--Ilovetopaint (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check the original hook, since the initial approval was for the April Fools' hook, now struck. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I personally think ALT1 would work for a regular quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Approving ALT1. It doesn't seem to be puffery. The distinction to me is that this hook is tongue-in-cheek, a fact which becomes clear (if it wasn't already) when one reads the first sentence of the article. By contrast, hooks like "John Lennon is brilliant" or "Elvis is the best" would be puffery if they linked only to the John Lennon or Elvis Presley articles, and the phrases themselves did not have a deeper meaning other than to say "[name of artist] is great." This seems fine as a quirky hook, and in a way, that's precisely because Wikipedia excludes puffery; the hook reads as odd and out of place, which creates the reason to click over and see what the article is all about. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Approved for April 1st. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
What's April Foolsy about this hook? Nothing that I can see. It might be okay as a quirky in a standard set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Approving ALT1. It doesn't seem to be puffery. The distinction to me is that this hook is tongue-in-cheek, a fact which becomes clear (if it wasn't already) when one reads the first sentence of the article. By contrast, hooks like "John Lennon is brilliant" or "Elvis is the best" would be puffery if they linked only to the John Lennon or Elvis Presley articles, and the phrases themselves did not have a deeper meaning other than to say "[name of artist] is great." This seems fine as a quirky hook, and in a way, that's precisely because Wikipedia excludes puffery; the hook reads as odd and out of place, which creates the reason to click over and see what the article is all about. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)