User talk:Antony-22/Archive 17

DYK for Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

hooks
Hey, Antony! The report's off of ERRORS now, so I couldn't reply to you there. Hooks are edited after initial review probably as often as not. It's expected of editors at DYK to make changes they think are an improvement as the hook passes through their review. If they think the change might be controversial, they'll open a section at DYK talk and ping the nom/reviewer to discuss it first, but sometimes I've made a fairly major change so late in the process that I don't have time to discuss first. You aren't the only nominator to object to such changes, but in my experience regular workers at DYK consider this a very clearly intended part of the process. Anyone is free to edit any hook in prep; the nom/reviewer are the only ones who would be looked at sideways for making a change in prep/queue without discussing first.

An admin at ERRORS will revert such a change if they agree with you that it clearly wasn't an improvement, but if (as in this case) the issue isn't that clear, they're going to want at least one other person to agree with you. That's why I pinged the other people who'd been involved with that nom. There's no "revert until we get consensus" expectation in favor of the nominator's original conception of the hook. It's assumed that consensus is developing as the hook moves through the process and various changes are made without generating any discussion. —valereee (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that that's how DYK works. The version that is approved is the one that has been scrutinized and has consensus as filling all the DYK criteria, including both accuracy and readability.  (Note that I'm referencing the approved version, not "the nominator's original conception of the hook".)  Subsequent changes in the prep area are not as visible and usually are not double-checked by anyone, and there is no presumption of any consensus for them.  This practice has been troublesome for a long time, as it sometimes introduces factual errors, but it is tolerated because pulling it back to the review stage is a bit of a pain.
 * Here, there was a choice between a hook version that was approved through the consensus review process, and another version that was disputed. In my experience from 13 years at DYK, I've come to expect that any hook with disputed accuracy would be rapidly pulled back from the Main Page even before any discussion would take place.  In this case, I thought that since we already had an undisputedly correct, approved version that a simple swap would suffice, but I'm shocked that people would actually forcefully argue to keep a disputed statement on the Main Page.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's in my experience how it works. When I build a prep set or move one to queue, I consider my review part of the scrutinization-and-consensus-development process in each case. The first review is to make sure all the boxes are checked. Just like with any other part of WP, any editor is free to make subsequent good-faith changes. The first review isn't some sort of declaration that "Here we have the perfect result; no more changes should be made" any more than any other review process on WP is. You can look at any prep set and you'll see multiple editors making changes. I do think for major changes discussion is needed, or the hook pulled if there's no time for discussion, and that happens probably daily, but I can see why someone thought this was a minor change. We pipe links to articles for various reasons often; there's one bolded on DYK right now and multiple nonbolded.
 * I think the problem here is that it's not as easy to follow a hook as it continues through the process after initial review as just putting it on your watchlist so you automatically see when anyone touches it. It goes by when it gets promoted, but after that unless you've got all the preps and queues on your watch -- which maybe only regular DYK workers do, and probably not all of them even -- you might not notice a change being made.
 * I just disagree that using anything but the entire full official name of the bill represents "inaccuracy," as it's quite common to refer to bills other than by their entire full official name. That's why I wasn't comfortable changing it back at ERRORS. I'm sorry we didn't have the discussion before it got to the MP, but if there'd been such a discussion, unless there was some stronger argument than "that's the government's official rendering, so that's the only correct way to refer to it in every context", I would have supported finding some other mutually-agreeable alt. —valereee (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

List of crossings of the Anacostia River
Hello, Antony,

Sorry for the mix-up with your article. I should have investigated this further. Let me know if there is anything that needs to be fixed. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Glen Cove Hospital
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Lenox Health Greenwich Village
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for North Shore Central School District
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for List of tallest buildings on Long Island
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Queen of Peace Cemetery
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New year header
Template:New year header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Caltech topics
Antony, I do respect and appreciate your efforts in creating good articles about Caltech topics, and lots of other good stuff, but you're a bit off-base on what the consensus is about routine style issues. Let's call it done and move on. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that I have some time to respond... You and I can both read MOS:CAPS equally well, and its language is clear that the criterion is "substantial majority", not "I found a few counterexamples and ignored the rest of the corpus".  I was hoping to avoid having to develop an RfC, but this is apparently the only way to resolve this.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bath High School (Ohio) location
Hi there! You just recently moved Bath High School (Lima, Ohio) to Bath High School (Ohio) with the rationale that the school isn't located in Lima. However, the school's website gives the address of the high school as 2850 Bible Road, Lima, OH 45801, and a quick search of that address shows that it is indeed the high school. Should it be moved back? Is there a quirk of Ohioan geography that I'm missing that means it's technically not in Lima? Is it such a niche topic that it's fine either way? Thanks in advance for your consideration! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good question. Bath High School is not in the city of Lima, Ohio; it is in the neighboring unincorporated part of Bath Township outside Lima.  In the U.S., mailing addresses do not always correspond to municipal boundaries, so that areas that are outside but near a city are sometimes assigned that city's mailing address.  Also, the general practice is to use as concise a disambiguation as possible, so unless there's another Bath High School elsewhere in Ohio, it only needs to specified to the state level.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, neat! I can't claim to totally understand it - there are so many intricacies to the U.S. postal system - but it does make sense. The disambig specificity makes perfect sense, too. Thanks for getting back to me! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Glen Cove City School District
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Superior Credit Union
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Subst:NewDYKnomination at templates for discussion
Template:Subst:NewDYKnomination has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)