Template:Did you know nominations/Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds
- ... that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds focuses on a gay man who pretends to be straight so he can seduce another man?
- Source: Cohen, Neil (November 2, 2006). "Just Desserts - 2004 Out Far! Sensation Eating Out is Back for Seconds". Echo Magazine. Archived from the original on February 24, 2007. Retrieved February 20, 2024.
- ALT1: ... that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds featuring a scene where a character has sex in a portable toilet caused many actors to drop out? Source: Quantic, David (May 29, 2007). "Serving Seconds: The Making of Eating Out 2". Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Ariztical Entertainment.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Farnese Artemis
PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC).
Not a review, but ALT0 fails WP:DYKFICTION. ALT1 should be fine on that front.--Launchballer 20:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Thank you for contributing to the discussion. :) Taking that into account, would ALT0 work as "that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds focusing on a gay man who pretends being straight to seduce another man came from writer-director Phillip J. Bartell's desire to invert the first film's premise?"? I can come up with a few alternatives if needed. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- ALT2 still violates that policy I'm afraid, and I still think ALT1 is more interesting. I would however suggest a slightly shorter version of ALT1 per WP:DYKTRIM, ALT1a: ... that a scene in Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds caused many actors to drop out?. Full review needed.--Launchballer 20:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I fear that if ALT1 is trimmed, it will end up becoming less interesting. On the one hand, it can be argued that it creates a sense of mystery. As in, "why did many actors drop out?". But on the other hand, the idea that actors dropped out of a role because the character has sex in a portable toilet is definitely unique and will also catch people's attention; I think. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- PanagiotisZois, this is not a review either, but I'm afraid retaining ALT1's bit about sex in a toilet would be borderline "excessively sensational or gratuitous" as per WP:DYKINT; concealing the scene in question through ALT1a should arguably make for an "Intriguing hook that leaves the reader wanting to know more". Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Full review still needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't find any of the hooks up above usable or interesting, and I don't get the hold up on writing new hooks as there are many available in the article. The nom has had two months to offer new ones. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you intend on doing a full review? Until that happens and someone reviews this nomination, why bother coming up with new ones now? Once someone actually performs a proper review, there's nothing on my part to do.PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's pretty much the opposite to how I work, so I'll leave the review to someone else who will work with you. The "why bother" attitude is disturbing to me, as you could easily add new hooks and attract a reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
@PanagiotisZois and Viriditas: Right, well, the way I work is that I review the oldest fully unreviewed nom when I need a QPQ, and this is it (ping me when you've finished with Hanif Kureshi). This is long enough and new enough. QPQ done and I see no article disqualifiers. I would have said that ALT1a was intriguing (I would have wondered why they dropped out) and I disagree with ALT1 falling foul of WP:DYKGRAT (this is an article about sex!), but if Viriditas disagrees then you should probably propose another hook.--Launchballer 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: All right, I've come up with a few alternative hooks. I do think the OG is interesting, albeit needing a bit of rewording, and ALT1 also works in either its short or long fomr, but hopefully these new ones will prove more interesting. ALT2: "... that Phillip J. Bartell, writer and director of Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds, once described the film as "gaysploitation"?" Source. ALT3: "...that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds cowriter Q. Allan Brocka, a film heavily featuring the ex-gay movement, was often asked by ex-gay groups to denounce his homosexuality?" (Source: DVD Making-Of). ALT4: "...that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds featuring nude scenes involving the male leads caused one critic to describe the film as a "must see"?" Source.PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh I agree, ALT0 is interesting, but we can't use it because of WP:DYKFICTION and we can't use ALT3 as it fails WP:DYKMAJOR. ALT2's fine, though I'd trim it as follows: ALT2a: ... that the director and co-writer of Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds once described the film as "gaysploitation"?. (Technically I'd need another reviewer for 'co-writer', but ALT3 AGF checks out factually and covers that there was more than one writer so I'm IARing.) ALT4 feels promotional, so I'm approving ALT2a only. (I still don't think a hook about toilet sex is gratuitous from an article about sex, but let's see what a promoter thinks of ALT2a.)--Launchballer 12:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- If the use of "co-writer" is an issue, the hook can simply state "the director of" instead. One could argue that directors are usually treated as more important roles than screenwriters when it comes to films; unlike TV shows. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
