Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/High heel policy

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

High heel policy edit

(
)
  • ... that high heels (pictured) were illegal in England and Parliament is being petitioned to act again?

Created/expanded by Mhhossein (talk) and MurielMary (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment: I think we need to express why the petition has begun. So, I propose the following hook:
ALT1:...that high heels (pictured), once illegal in England and Parliament in the eighteenth century, is being petitioned to act again after a female employee refused to follow the dress code at the office? Mhhossein (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with ALT1 is it's a bit long-winded, and ALT2 gives the impression that mandatory high heels have caused controversy in London before, which doesn't appear to be the case. How about ALT3 ... that a receptionist for a major firm was sent home unpaid from work because she refused to wear high heels? (Off topic, I followed the article links to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, and was crestfallen to discover that "Hopkins" wasn't that one. I'll put the popcorn away). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • But ALT1 is 198 characters! Mhhossein (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Mhhossein, ALT1 is still quite long even if under the absolute maximum (note WP:DYKHOOK, which does not guarantee passage even if just under 200, and says hooks should be concise); not only does it seem to go on and on, its wording is problematic: it reads as if "high heels...is being petitioned", which makes no sense. I've struck it. ALT3 is interesting, but I think it needs to establish where this happened, whether London, or in the UK, or whatever. Most of these hooks, including ALT3, require sourcing by the end of each sentence in which the hook facts appear (for ALT3, the first sentence of the final paragraph). Further, the sentence needs to state that it was the failure to wear high heels that caused her to be sent home—it doesn't actually come out and say that this was the part of the dress code she ran afoul of. (Was that the extent of her infractions?) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

New enough, long enough, no close paraphrasing, neutral, sourced, original hook works (ALTs are dubious). I would add "once" before "illegal" in the hook, but I don't think I am allowed to make suggestions like that and also approve the submission. GTG. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have pulled this nomination following complaints that the chosen hook does not make sense. Could somebody please suggest another hook? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • How about ALT4 (below)? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that high heels (pictured) were once illegal in England?
  • ALT4 has the great virtue of being short and simple. But, we don't currently say much about this illegality in the article. I found the fact in a reasonable source but didn't find much supporting material elsewhere when I looked. If we focus on this, we should try to find more to say about it. Andrew D. (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't there an Easter egg problem because high heels are pictured, not high heels policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. The picture appears in the article which is about notable aspects of such high heels. For an analogous case, consider a hook I was just looking at:
... that Medal of Honor recipient Audie Murphy (pictured) saw combat in nine WWII campaigns with the US Army, and was afterward an officer in the Texas National Guard for sixteen years?
This hook might lead you to think that the bold-faced article is the main article about Audie Murphy when it's actually a sub-article. That hook did quite well. Andrew D. (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not content with ALT4. I have traced the fact back to John Brookes (1859), Manners and Customs of the English Nation, James Blackwood, pp. 261–262, In the year 1770 an act was introduced into Parliament against hoops, false hair, high heels... This account seems to have been widely repeated ever since but I haven't found any record of this before that time. The main issue is that this doesn't make it clear whether the act was passed or not – subsequent sources vary in saying what became of this. I think we need a more definite record to support a hook like ALT4 or the wording needs to be more tentative. I suggest:

ALT5: ... that, in 1770, Parliament considered an act concerning high heels (pictured) and now, in 2016, it is making a fresh inquiry?
Andrew D. (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
With ALT5, good to go. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
But it's not interesting at all. Why they are making a fresh inquiry is far more interesting than the act of making inquiry itself.Mhhossein (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a hook, not a summary or explanation. Why is parliament inquiring about high heels? Read on ... Aymatth2 (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promoter's comment: This article has languished long enough. The ALT5 hook is perfectly acceptable. We are making the perfect into the enemy of the good here. I'm promoting it. Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/High_heel_policy&oldid=945138173"