Template:Did you know nominations/The Fornicating Dog
- 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 Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Fornicating Dog
[edit]... that Chinese writer Pu Songling wrote of a "bitch on heat" who had sex with a dog?
Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 15:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC).
Date and length fine. AGF on offline hook. QPQ done. no close para. I am going to be BOLD here and hold this back for April Fools Day because I think it is a very good hook that fits that remit. I will move it to the AFD holding area but if you don't want it run then, just let me know. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
This hook doesn't work at all for me. There is nothing unusual about "a bitch on heat" having sex with a dog - that's what bitches are supposed to do. Might I suggest the following:- ALT1:
... that in a long-suppressed story by Pu Songling, an adulterous dog is sentenced to lingchi?Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- No link to main article, lacks that oomph and most people wouldn't know what lingchi is (thus it won't receive as many clicks as "bitch on heat"!!! And cmon, what goes through most people's heads when they see that? Oh, yawn, that's what they're supposed to do??) Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for the missing link to the nomination, I have rectified that now. I maintain my objection to the original hook - bitches on heat have sex with dogs all the time, it's not at all unusual or noteworthy. Even if you guess that the "bitch" is a human female, bestiality is a well known phenomenon that is hardly worth highlighting. A dog being sentenced for a crime, however, is very unusual. It still isn't a great hook, given that it's a fictional story and not a real event, but it does a better job of meeting the basic criterion that a hook should highlight something out-of-the-ordinary. And the link to lingchi is at least educational.
- Another potential objection to the original hook is that some folks may well find a reference to a human female as a "bitch" to be objectionable. Gatoclass (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- There will always be "some folks" that are offended or find objection with something. WP is NOTCENSORED. This is not my opinion of the protagonist; it is Pu's, and is duly quoted. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely because of these constraints, it would be even more hurtful to roll out such a mild hook. The words 'bitch on heat' grab far more attention than 'dog sentenced to lingchi'. I wouldn't mind if the hook was "a dogf*cker (or for that matter a fcking dog) was sentenced to death by a thousand cuts" but that would be harder to pass because the specific vocab would be mine. Whereas Pu conveniently provides us with "bitch on heat" -- a good, punchy hook would revolve around that, at least in my view. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've already explained why I believe the hook fails the most basic DYK criterion - that a hook must highlight something out of the ordinary. A "bitch on heat" mating with another dog clearly fails that test. I've also pointed out that a reference to a human female as a "bitch on heat" is likely to be offensive to some people on this project. Now you are arguing that your proposed hook will get more hits. You might be right about that. However, we don't select hooks solely on that basis. If that was the only criterion for hook selection, we could simply run every possible hook on themes of sex and violence, because such themes almost invariably get more attention. The reason we don't do that is because we are not a sleazy tabloid but an educational project. And in this case, quite frankly, I cannot see a redeeming feature to your proposed hook. It just reads to me like a cheap attention-getter, of the kind that an educational project should generally avoid, as your above comments tend to confirm. Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- It demonstrates the existence of zoophilua in Pu's era from dynasties ago! That is "out of the ordinary", a contravention of traditional Chinese values. And look, if this didn't have educational value, and failed guidelines, it would have been AfD'ed or speedied or whatever. So the topic itself, as well as the source matter for my proposed hook, are educational. It is just a matter of how you lead people to that knowledge -- thru a dry and boring way? Or grab their attention, then get them to delve deeper into a fascinating topic? Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I've had my say and you've had yours. Since we are unable to agree, this will have to be resolved by other parties. Thanks for the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The original reviewer was veteran editor The C of E, who has approved countless DYKs and churns out many himself. The ding-donging is pointless, we just need someone to redact this lengthy exchange and approve this nomination (as it would have been). Following which you can express your displeasure with this April 1 hook on WT:DYK. Have a good one bud. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't have this watchlisted and wasn't pinged so only just seeing this now. I personally am getting fed up with people continuously trying to treat funny AFD hooks as if they are serious ones set to be run on normal days and suggesting unsuitable alternatives that do not help. AFD is the one day that DYK nominators are allowed to make mischief and to take away the 1 day in 366 (as this is a leap year) that we are allowed to have fun really is not part of the inclusive project that we all desire and enjoy contributing to. My original review stands for the first hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have unstruck my proposed hook as there is clearly no consensus for the original hook at this point, with only two parties excepting the nominator commenting thus far. When I said I was content to leave this to "other parties", I meant that we need new opinions, not repetition of views from those who have already commented. As for your other comments, "fun" and quality control are not mutually exclusive, indeed, the better the quality of the final product, the more fun will be had by all. I am participating here only because I want to ensure that April Fools Day is the most fun it can be, which means doing my best to see that the promoted hooks are actually funny or clever rather than weak, cringeworthy or downright offensive. Of course, there is room for disagreement on what constitutes a funny or unfunny hook, but please let's at least try and respect consensus on the issue rather than trying to impose our personal preferences. Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Gato, what I said was not specifically aimed at you it was a general statement. However your claim that there is "clearly no consensus" is incorrect as there is only you opposing it at this time whereas the nominator and I both feel that there is nothing wrong with that hook. With regard to quality control, the hook is sourced in the article (albeit offline) and the phrase does appear in it. Granted using "bitch" is a bit of a shock hook however it is par for the course for April Fools Day (and frankly is a lot milder than some stuff that's been on in the past). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since one can't approve one's own hooks, Kingoflettuce's approval doesn't carry the weight of an independent reviewer, though his views can certainly be taken into consideration. That's why I said we need at least one other person to comment. But in any case, it's not as if April Fools is five minutes away, there is still plenty of time for others to comment, or to find another alternative hook if agreement cannot be reached on the above. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to add my two cents here. I am totally repulsed by the "bitch on heat" hook. Whatever shock value it will have for the hypersexed men whom Kingoflettuce represents will be blunted by the offense to Wikipedia's other half of its readership, women. Coming off an entire month dedicated to women's achievements in Women's History Month in March, this plunges the main page right back into schoolyard snickering. I strongly support ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since one can't approve one's own hooks, Kingoflettuce's approval doesn't carry the weight of an independent reviewer, though his views can certainly be taken into consideration. That's why I said we need at least one other person to comment. But in any case, it's not as if April Fools is five minutes away, there is still plenty of time for others to comment, or to find another alternative hook if agreement cannot be reached on the above. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Gato, what I said was not specifically aimed at you it was a general statement. However your claim that there is "clearly no consensus" is incorrect as there is only you opposing it at this time whereas the nominator and I both feel that there is nothing wrong with that hook. With regard to quality control, the hook is sourced in the article (albeit offline) and the phrase does appear in it. Granted using "bitch" is a bit of a shock hook however it is par for the course for April Fools Day (and frankly is a lot milder than some stuff that's been on in the past). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have unstruck my proposed hook as there is clearly no consensus for the original hook at this point, with only two parties excepting the nominator commenting thus far. When I said I was content to leave this to "other parties", I meant that we need new opinions, not repetition of views from those who have already commented. As for your other comments, "fun" and quality control are not mutually exclusive, indeed, the better the quality of the final product, the more fun will be had by all. I am participating here only because I want to ensure that April Fools Day is the most fun it can be, which means doing my best to see that the promoted hooks are actually funny or clever rather than weak, cringeworthy or downright offensive. Of course, there is room for disagreement on what constitutes a funny or unfunny hook, but please let's at least try and respect consensus on the issue rather than trying to impose our personal preferences. Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- The original reviewer was veteran editor The C of E, who has approved countless DYKs and churns out many himself. The ding-donging is pointless, we just need someone to redact this lengthy exchange and approve this nomination (as it would have been). Following which you can express your displeasure with this April 1 hook on WT:DYK. Have a good one bud. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I've had my say and you've had yours. Since we are unable to agree, this will have to be resolved by other parties. Thanks for the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- It demonstrates the existence of zoophilua in Pu's era from dynasties ago! That is "out of the ordinary", a contravention of traditional Chinese values. And look, if this didn't have educational value, and failed guidelines, it would have been AfD'ed or speedied or whatever. So the topic itself, as well as the source matter for my proposed hook, are educational. It is just a matter of how you lead people to that knowledge -- thru a dry and boring way? Or grab their attention, then get them to delve deeper into a fascinating topic? Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've already explained why I believe the hook fails the most basic DYK criterion - that a hook must highlight something out of the ordinary. A "bitch on heat" mating with another dog clearly fails that test. I've also pointed out that a reference to a human female as a "bitch on heat" is likely to be offensive to some people on this project. Now you are arguing that your proposed hook will get more hits. You might be right about that. However, we don't select hooks solely on that basis. If that was the only criterion for hook selection, we could simply run every possible hook on themes of sex and violence, because such themes almost invariably get more attention. The reason we don't do that is because we are not a sleazy tabloid but an educational project. And in this case, quite frankly, I cannot see a redeeming feature to your proposed hook. It just reads to me like a cheap attention-getter, of the kind that an educational project should generally avoid, as your above comments tend to confirm. Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely because of these constraints, it would be even more hurtful to roll out such a mild hook. The words 'bitch on heat' grab far more attention than 'dog sentenced to lingchi'. I wouldn't mind if the hook was "a dogf*cker (or for that matter a fcking dog) was sentenced to death by a thousand cuts" but that would be harder to pass because the specific vocab would be mine. Whereas Pu conveniently provides us with "bitch on heat" -- a good, punchy hook would revolve around that, at least in my view. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- There will always be "some folks" that are offended or find objection with something. WP is NOTCENSORED. This is not my opinion of the protagonist; it is Pu's, and is duly quoted. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I respect you very much, but you're sounding like yet another politically correct Westerner who pretends to sound indignant at things that threaten lofty ideals. Regardless of what hook goes, you can never erase the fact that BITCH ON HEAT IS and ALWAYS WILL BE present in this very story! You're not addressing the problem, merely masking it. Is this the first time something "offensive" has appeared? No, and worse things have been put up. But we accept it with an open mind because 1) IT'S NOT NPOV :- IT'S FOUND IN THE ARTICLE AND IS SOURCED 2) do you seriously think all women will be offended by this? In this day and age, look around! Wake up to reality. All I wanted was for some fun April 1 hooks but you guys are being moral superheroes. I've said my share, if you're still offended, I am very sorry, please go ahead with your boring hooks. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: I think that may be a case of WP:JDL as we have had hooks about hookers and "wet and spanked" hooks on AFD in the past and this seems to be more of a continuation of that vein. I do stand by my original review because we are never going to get away from the nature of the hook and we may as well accept it and try and make it as hooky as it can be. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that Pu Songling says: lie down with dogs, wind up in pieces? Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Appreciated, Gato. Much better. That's what I meant by yes for content but no for presentation. ALT2 is pretty crisp, rather impactful. I would hope for something raunchier though, but this is neat enuf. Now this is a constructive one! Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- As the original reviewer I am still attached to the original simply for the hooky-ness of it but I'll leave it to the promoter to decide which one to use. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
ALT2 needs to be reviewed and given a tick if it passes; the other two hooks have been struck. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT2 is confirmed in the article (10,000 pieces, apparently, in this particular story, given the definition of lingchi), but sourced to an offline source, hence the AGF tick. The rest of the review per The C of E, though this is only an approval of ALT2 and not of the previously struck hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)