A fact from Royal Air Force Rugby League appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 June 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Royal Air Force Rugby League is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles.
Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
"an unofficial team set up in 1992 to circumvent a British Armed Forces ban on rugby league" .... it doesnt sound as if there was a ban if a team was formed. It sounds like there was not an official team and then there was.
Victuallers (
talk)
07:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
... that the rugby league teams of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, where rugby league was banned until 1994 due to the strength of rugby union, take part in the Challenge Cup alongside Great Britain Police? Source: "9". Routledge Handbook of Global Sport. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317500476.
Articles are new enough, long enough, and are within policy. However, the hook wording is very awkward and reads like a run-on sentence. I prefer the language of the Alt1 hook, and I am not certain why that was crossed out.
The C of E could you please propose a different hook, or rework the content of the original hook for clarity so we can promote this. Thanks.
4meter4 (
talk)
18:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
That is better, but might I suggest adding the word rules after rugby union. It will be exactly 200 characters, but I think will read better.
4meter4 (
talk)
21:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
As per
A5: "New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count".
Nikkimaria (
talk)
12:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Looks like we're in the process of changing cycle time so best wait for that to be sorted before doing anything with date requests.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Since ERRORS will soon get cleared, I'll list the reasons I pulled it here:
It's 220 characters; I thought the limit was a "hard" 200, sometimes less. I considered at first maybe multiple-article noms got more leeway, but didn't see anything in the DYK rules about that. Is that an unwritten rule?
It will not be clear to a lot of people that rugby league and rugby union are different things; that might be solved by just linking the two articles.
I fear the hook is trying to tell too many stories in too small a space. The banning of rugby league requires more space to be understandable. And because of the small space, it was simplified too much ("banned ... due to the strength of rugby union"?)
It is not clear (and, I think, maybe not grammatical) to say "... where rugby league was banned" when you're referring, not to a place, but to the British armed forces.
The fact that it was banned, and the fact that the armed forces play in the Challenge cup, appear completely unrelated to each other.
Someone at ERRORS (not me) pointed out that the bold links are a little easter-egg-like.
In summary, I don't have a great idea on a fix, but I did not think it was ready for the main page as is. Sorry for any bad feelings that may cause. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
01:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Floquenbeam: Given this got pulled in the middle of the night when I was asleep, I am a little peeved at that. But hopefully we can get this fixed in time for it to run in the afternoon. The length falls under
WP:DYKSG#C3 which clearly states that only the first link in a multi-hook nom counts towards the character count. If the banned bit is the problem we'll just do:
A fact from Royal Air Force Rugby League appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 June 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Royal Air Force Rugby League is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles.
Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
"an unofficial team set up in 1992 to circumvent a British Armed Forces ban on rugby league" .... it doesnt sound as if there was a ban if a team was formed. It sounds like there was not an official team and then there was.
Victuallers (
talk)
07:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
... that the rugby league teams of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, where rugby league was banned until 1994 due to the strength of rugby union, take part in the Challenge Cup alongside Great Britain Police? Source: "9". Routledge Handbook of Global Sport. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317500476.
Articles are new enough, long enough, and are within policy. However, the hook wording is very awkward and reads like a run-on sentence. I prefer the language of the Alt1 hook, and I am not certain why that was crossed out.
The C of E could you please propose a different hook, or rework the content of the original hook for clarity so we can promote this. Thanks.
4meter4 (
talk)
18:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
That is better, but might I suggest adding the word rules after rugby union. It will be exactly 200 characters, but I think will read better.
4meter4 (
talk)
21:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
As per
A5: "New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count".
Nikkimaria (
talk)
12:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Looks like we're in the process of changing cycle time so best wait for that to be sorted before doing anything with date requests.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Since ERRORS will soon get cleared, I'll list the reasons I pulled it here:
It's 220 characters; I thought the limit was a "hard" 200, sometimes less. I considered at first maybe multiple-article noms got more leeway, but didn't see anything in the DYK rules about that. Is that an unwritten rule?
It will not be clear to a lot of people that rugby league and rugby union are different things; that might be solved by just linking the two articles.
I fear the hook is trying to tell too many stories in too small a space. The banning of rugby league requires more space to be understandable. And because of the small space, it was simplified too much ("banned ... due to the strength of rugby union"?)
It is not clear (and, I think, maybe not grammatical) to say "... where rugby league was banned" when you're referring, not to a place, but to the British armed forces.
The fact that it was banned, and the fact that the armed forces play in the Challenge cup, appear completely unrelated to each other.
Someone at ERRORS (not me) pointed out that the bold links are a little easter-egg-like.
In summary, I don't have a great idea on a fix, but I did not think it was ready for the main page as is. Sorry for any bad feelings that may cause. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
01:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Floquenbeam: Given this got pulled in the middle of the night when I was asleep, I am a little peeved at that. But hopefully we can get this fixed in time for it to run in the afternoon. The length falls under
WP:DYKSG#C3 which clearly states that only the first link in a multi-hook nom counts towards the character count. If the banned bit is the problem we'll just do: