Template:Did you know nominations/A Cure for Pokeritis

The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A Cure for Pokeritis

(

)

... that the 1912 short film A Cure for Pokeritis was about a woman who arranged a fake police raid on her husband's weekly poker game?
- Alt1... that the 1912 short film A Cure for Pokeritis was added to the National Film Registry as a representative of the short films known as Bunnygraphs?

Reviewed: Second lifetime DYK nomination, taking the exemption.

Created by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk). Self nominated at 17:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC).

Article is new, long enough, and well-sourced; hook(s) are interesting and under 200 characters; ALT hook verified from online source, AGF for original hook. No other issues. Sasata (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is one problem - the original hook cannot be used as it goes against rule C6. An article involving a work of fiction has to have a hook which involves the real world. Unless the nom can replace it, ALT will have to be used. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No objections, naturally. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The original hook does not violate that rule, which is intended to prevent hooks such as ... that a woman arranged a fake police raid on her husband's weekly poker game to cure him of pokeritis? The original hook, in saying what a film is about, does involve the real world. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not what I heard from BlueMoonset over here. So which is it? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There is minimal real-world involvement here, but I think it's enough. "1912 short film" makes it perfectly clear that this is a work of fiction, and that the events are fictional, and that this film was released in 1912. That's the real world right there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm the one learning something. I would have thought it required more than giving a minor fact about the work of fiction, like the year of creation: that there be something more "real world" than that. I actually prefer the ALT hook—there's something about the term "Bunnygraph". Indeed, if Bunnygraph could be worked into the original hook, that would be more than minimal, as would mention of the National Film Registry. That was the level I'd been thinking of in terms of fictional works and characters. One of the best hooks I ever did was a collaboration on a fictional TV character that started with a version that named the show and then went straight into fictional details about the role. Adding the actor who played the role and recasting it from his perspective ultimately made the hook even more effective. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, I agree with BlueMoonset that the alt is better, so to avoid further debate I suggest we go with that one. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I restructured citations and made minor tweaks on alt1. Either hook is fine, but I'll leave that to promoter. Article is long enough, and sources are reliable. --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)