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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, neutral and plagiarism-free. Although the hook is interesting and cited, it seems to be stating an opinion as a fact, which I believe violates WP:DYK#Content: The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change [...] [and] be neutral (emphasis in original). QPQ has been done. Pamzeis (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that "absolutely disgusting" should probably be quoted—on a side note, this is a delightful article on a horrifying subject and I was happier when I didn't know that existed. Nice work on the article! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Pamzeis: Although if I have to suffer, I would like others to suffer as well—therefore, I strongly recommend that the image in the infobox be used at DYK theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I've added an ALT0a which quotes "absolutely disgusting". As for this not being an "established fact", I hope I never live in a world where offering severed human feet to neighborhood children is not considered absolutely disgusting. I've also added an ALT1, which has less shock value, but is more mysterious; I think I actually like it better than my original, for that reason. I'd be happy to have the image be used. I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to know how to rework my nomination to add that to the template, so could somebody please assist me on that? Thanks. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I prefer ALT1. Since it refers to something near the end of the article, it keeps people interested long enough to get to the end. Oh, what a twisted world I live in that I'm excited about having written a click-baity headline. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 is certainly very interesting but I think it fails WP:DYK#Content/WP:DYKSG#C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way. If I'm correct, in-universe hooks aren't allowed. We can go with ALT0a but as the nom seems to prefer ALT1, let's see if we can work with that. Pamzeis (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a silly rule, and would still prefer ALT1, but sure, I'm fine with ALT0a. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, we'll go with ALT0a. If anyone has any ideas on how to make ALT1 out-of-universe (but still keep its hookiness), please share. Pamzeis (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: Honestly, if there were ever a good IAR exception on the fictional rule (which isn't unheard of), it'd be this hook, but I don't think I'd get consensus on that. As a side note, do you approve the image? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, right, forgot about that. The image is free, clear and used in the article so it's approved. I'm fine with IingAR as well. Pamzeis (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT0a to T:DYK/P4 with considerable lighthearted regret and/or disgust