-
-
- Fair enough that you have removed the PROD - that was to be expected. I have started the AfD process. Don't take it personally. Schwede66 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course not. I will do my best to demonstrate his notability. I just hope that, in case the article is kept, the deletion nomination will not affect the DYK nomination. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about that. The normal process is that when a DYK nomination is subject to an AfD, it just gets parked until it's all sorted. If the article is kept, the review will start at that point. There's no expiry happening as a result of this. Schwede66 19:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 The article has been moved to Trial of Thomas Hogg, and rewritten. However, the new name is not compliant with our policy/guidelines. Google search for "Thomas Hogg" yielded about 49,600 results, many of them living professionals (even CEOs and elected politicians across Europe and North America) who might have been taken to court at some point in their careers. The year of the trial must be added in brackets per our wp:title. Both, hook and article are written in a provocative way. Please check for wp:tone also. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is nonsense. You had nothing against the title when I first proposed it. It only started bothering you when it became clear that the article was not going to be deleted. If none of those living professionals is notable, I do not see anything wrong with the present title. Furthermore, if this is the only notable trial of a Thomas Hogg, then the title seems right. I simply fail to see what this article has to do with obscure people who may or may not have been tried in a completely unnotable trial. Has anyone ever assumed that "Trial of Michael Jackson" refers to Michael Jackson the journalist, Michael Jackson the poet, Michael Jackson the writer, Michael Jackson the bishop, Michael Jackson the anthropologist or any other Michael Jackson? Of course not. Even if one of them was tried at some point of their lives, that trial would not be nearly as notable as the trial of the American singer.
- The hook is as it is supposed to be and meets all the Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook requirements. Above all, it is "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". If you think that the article uses "first and second person pronouns" or "unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon" (which is what WP:Tone is about), please feel free to fix it because I cannot find any of that. Frankly, none of those comments is constructive, much like none of these threats and false accusations was. Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that Thomas Hogg was accused of fathering piglets because they resembled him, which was allegedly proven when the mother sow became aroused by him?
I've suggested ALT1 with one additional word so that the hook is factual. See what you think. Schwede66 05:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. It seems better. It did not occur to me that anyone could interpret it otherwise, but stranger things have happened. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The following is an archived discussion of Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
