This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire 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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire
A fact from Church of St Thomas à Becket, Box appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the churchyard of the Church of St Thomas à Becket in Box, Wiltshire, includes a pyramidical tombstone (pictured, right) said to have been contrived to prevent the deceased's wife from dancing on his grave?
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.
Overall: New enough and long enough (expanded from 309 to 1964 characters according to the Cut & Paste Character count). Well-written, neutral and well-sourced. Pic ok and QPQ done. Hook cited, unusual and interesting. Well done - seems good to go! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is misleading; the church is in Box, not in a Box. I get the joke (😆) but this is not a play on words, it's a misuse of them. ——SN5412908:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not eligible for April Fools' for the reason you note; it will have to run as a regular hook, and be subject to the usual rules regarding them. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 ... that the churchyard of Church of St Thomas à Becket, Box includes a triangular pinnacle gravestone (pictured) said to have been contrived to prevent the deceased's wife from dancing on his grave? [Wording modified and pic added 17:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)]
ALT1 would work—and is plenty quirky—if the parenthetical was put between commas (no parentheticals allowed in DYK hooks)...and if the fact and source were added to the article. I find ALT2 confusing, not intriguing. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh, obviously the intent was that it would be added to the article if there was a desire to use it. Or that someone appreciating my heeding the call to help out this dishwater-dull nom might do that anyway. Striking someone else's suggestion because you like your own better isn't very sporting. I'll leave it to you to unstrike. EEng10:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 is no better than ALT0; they are both equally poor, and all the former has done to change the latter is add a definitive. The original excuse for that ungrammaticism was that it was Simply April Fools style. Well, it didn't run on April Fool's; it's not going to run on April Fool's, so we can have a truly qwirky hook (ALT1, which is so qwirky as to verge on the bizarre!) rather than a misleading one. And can CoE please stop striking things he doesn't like? (Edit: added some pics of the pointy tomb) serial #14:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your opinion on it but the simple fact is that the alt1 is not in the article and thus cannot be used so it has to be struck in accordance with policy. We already have one hook approved according to policy. I am happy to continue with that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)16:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's the lockdown or what, CofE, but my recollections of you are perfectly pleasant and I don't recall you taking such pains to pose as obtuse; it's in the article now [2]. Three out of four editors commenting think A0/A2 falls flat, and while the nominator does get a quantum of extra deference in hook choice, I really think you might want to rethink this. I mean, you do want people to click, right? EEng17:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you EEng for visiting this ancient village church during the lockdown restrictions. I think your ALT1 hook is better than any of the others and will draw more clicks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, and in the spirit of pacifying the unpacifyable, and hoping EEng appreciates the spirit this is offered in to all parties, etc., a combination of the two themes might work: Something like (example only, tweak or plough salt into the ground if appropriate)ALT3...that a Box Church includes a triangular gravestone, pictured, said to have been contrived to prevent the deceased's wife from dancing on his grave?Juxtaposition of the cubic and pyramdal :) serial #18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]