User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2022/April

Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)
I am confused. This does not seem to be in the queu for April Fool tomorrow's main page DYK? Or at least I couldn't find it at links to the page. Memorialzing my effort for the DYK I won't get on April 1. Template:Did you know nominations/Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin). Oh well. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * confused - April Fool is not tomorrow, and it's in the queue for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Doh! 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Can hardly wait to see what nonsense you guys will put on the main page tomorrow
First time I'm actually looking forward to April 1. Even though the preps are now on my watchlist, I've intentionally stayed clear of DYK anticipating your team's contributions to the folly. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * just - see above - you'll have to wait another day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * and here we see gerda, frustrated with the fact that no one else is aware of March 31st... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * or, i suppose, 31 march. yuck. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @BusterD: the crop wasn't fantastic this year, but we did our best with the harvest :) looking forward to it too! And a special edition of DYK's wrapped, if I can find the wherewithal to write it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * School first, learning to be world-class writer later. BusterD (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we seeing two sets of DYKs on 4/1? BusterD (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @BusterD: one set this year, but not necessarily eight hooks... depends, we've got some ERRORS discussion going at the moment. We're at ten hooks for the moment. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So proud of you. You are a good egg. BusterD (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks, buster :D holding my breath on college transfer apps, i'll email you when they come back. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for C. J. Cregg
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sound file on DYK nomination
I managed to find a public domain recording for Iowa Corn Song which I started. Just seeing what your thoughts are on using the sound recording for a DYK hook. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @SL93: not bad, not bad—truth to be told, audio hooks aren't always the novelty our audience is looking for, so it may not make it through promotion—but I'd give it a shot, you never know, it might get picked up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the audience bit since normally only images are used. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * i remember running an operetta recording from Kavyansh not too long ago—if memory serves, it flopped. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * well, didn't make the stats page, at least. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I will give it a go since there is only one such recent hook for comparison. SL93 (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a new version with the excess content removed. The only problem is that I don't know how to add an audio file to a DYK like an image. SL93 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon. It was simple - Template:Did you know nominations/Iowa Corn Song. Although what to add instead of (pictured)... SL93 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be looking for Template:Did you know nominations/Boy Scouts of America (march). Yes, it wan't a huge hit, despite the fact that it was run on 112nd anniversary of the formation of the Boy Scouts of America. We used "(audio featured)" with the hook; see Main Page history/2022 February 8b. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

psst! hey! gerda!
over here now... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * March, you mean? - look and listen today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Gerda, am I reading "engaged" incorrectly? I'm thinking engagement... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Engagement (theatre) - I read the term in many articles, - wrong? Think of it as a relationship of some duration between a person and a company, perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you for understanding in the Panorama case, and I did what I could to make Alice Schwarzer's article more presentable. This year's women's month had its moments, and her picture on the Main page is one of them, but I wonder a bit why - again - 10 biographies of woman by me alone were written in March but will appear in April or May - as in past years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

hey! a new FA! - I translated a woman to German, so was absent most of the day, - it was a promise to self Unita Blackwell. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt: a shiny new FA indeed! WP:WiR is, as we all are, very thankful for you. Check out our April Fools' Day shpiel! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it. For the German DYK, I sharpened the Caesar hook by rendering the full name ;) - i like "yours" best, but what about people who have no idea "who" Darth Vader is? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt: presumably, they will find humour and mirth in one of our other fantastic AFD hooks :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * sure but not exactly what I mean, - i couldn't help thinking that we will have to live the fact that our readers don't have the same background, and trying to please all will narrow what we present. the quirky hook is funny for those who know what Darth Vader means, but still interesting to those who don't but who can assume in good faith that something interesting is told, or it would not have landed in the DYK section, and click to find out, or not. - i go for presenting a broad spectrum of things good to know, regardless if the "ordinary reader" always wanted to know. - did you see that "my" women in March came from 10 countries? - In yesterday's hook, more people clicked on the pictured woman than the man who refused and the magazine that was bold ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK wrap
I do enjoy your DYK wraps. Here's something about one of my hooks that ran during March; do with it as you see fit. Weston House was part of a triple nom. Stunning architecture, highest heritage rating, and it got bowled soon after the Christchurch earthquakes. Once I had written the article, I contacted the owner; really just to draw her attention to it as it was clear from her blog that she had a deep affinity for the building. She loved it! Got a real thrill out of seeing her old house on Wikipedia. Told me that her husband, with whom she had a shared love for the building, had since died. She dug out some neat photos and I coached her how to upload them to Commons. That's where we got the eventual lead hook photo from, with that photo classes better than the one it replaced while the hook sat in the queue. And to top it all off, by pure coincidence we had this on the MP on her wedding day, which she was very pleased with.

Just a wee reflection how we have given an individual a lot of joy.  Schwede 66  01:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that the new image was added before the articles hit the main page. Great story. SL93 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for How Civil Wars Start
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can I tell you something? This is one of those times where I could give a damn what the people think. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ainsley Hayes
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * can i take this muffin? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In a white bathrobe dancing in the basement of the White House. YES you may take the entire tray, Leek! BusterD (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which goes to show you: everybody loves them some Ainsley Hayes! Congrats, again. BusterD (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks! :D p.s. what have i done for you lately? vetted your preakness jockey, that's what :P theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Zoosphaerium darthvaderi
~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 00:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC) the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Refactoring
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Narutolovehinata5. Such edits are disruptive. Venkat TL (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Venkat TL: WP:REFACTOR (a guideline you linked in your edit summary) doesn't disallow the removal of personal attacks; his ego won, Wikipedia lost is, in my view, a textbook attack against narutolovehinata5's personality. On another note, my apologies for not leaving you a note on your own talk page about my removing your uncivil comment. That was an oversight on my part, and I hope this situation can now be resolved here. However, I stand by the original removal of your comment, as I consider it combative, unconstructive, and not at all legitimate.  For those playing along at home, see this diff and this diff—I struck the final sentence of the former message, which was reverted by Venkat along with this note. Feel free to read the entire discussion for broader context, if you'd like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree with your opinion on PA. Please do not remove it. It is not your talk page nor that is a PA as you believe. So I hope you will not remove my comment again, if you still want to remove it, please pursue this at proper avenues. That page was on my watch-list, so no harm done in not leaving me a note. Venkat TL (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone is doing something because of their ego is a personal attack. I highly doubt you meant it in a positive way. SL93 (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Lucy Feagin
Just seeing when you will return to the GA nomination. SL93 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a bit frustrated because it took a little over a week for the initial review and you haven't returned to the nomination for almost two days. I don't get it. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * well, I'm not active on shabbat, and I didn't have any time throughout the day to sit down and respond. I'll have time tonight. my apologies for the delays. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for letting me know. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of my issue is that I was hoping for the GA nomination to be completed before the article hit the main page for DYK. I was hoping that because you picked the review up on March 24 and now the hook runs tomorrow at 7 pm central time. I'm not trying to rush you with this comment, but I'm just trying to explain my thought process. SL93 (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @SL93: if it's any comfort, the article is preeeeeeetty much at GA quality—the minute changes that span the distance from where the article is now to the green button are not going to make much difference to the end user. that said, we'll be good to go once we hammer out the necessary pedantry, which hopefully means we can be done by tomorrow, either before or during its mainpage run. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As for DYK in general, we are very close to 120 approved nominations. I want at least a break from building preps that I plan on fulfilling. We don't have the prep builders that are needed though. I'm not sure of how many DYK contributors realize the gravity of the situation if the two of us just dropped the promoting. SL93 (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping you can leave a list of what needs to be fixed for close paraphrasing in your opinion. I can't really work much on the article without knowing. SL93 (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't listed among the other Education GAs at Good articles/Social sciences and society. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, adding that to the relevant list is the last step for the GA reviewer. SL93 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry, thought that step was automated. should be done now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Thanks for reviewing the article. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Titles
Refreshed, musings about titles, coming from Main Title (The West Wing). We need to distinguish article title, common name, and official title. Where I come from: things in brackets mean a disambiguation, and are not part of the title. Example: Requiem (Mozart) (Mozart's Requiem), Turandot (Busoni) (Turandot is an opera by ... Busoni), Ave Maria (Beyoncé song) ("Ave Maria" is a song by Beyoncé). The first will be plain, as only a generic title, the second gets italics as a major work, the third gets quotation marks as a minor work. In all three cases, the thing in brackets is not part of the title, but just something to distinguish from another piece (or more) of the same title. So I thought that in our case, similarly, The West Wing) was only a disambiguation, and the title Main Title, which I find hard to talk about ;) - which would lead to "Main Title" is the theme music of ... The West Wing. But now you say no, this is different, and I never met a thing with a bracket as part of the title. Did I get that right so far? - What is the common name of Main Title (The West Wing). What is the official name of Main Title (The West Wing). Is it a major or a minor work? (I often don't know, Ave Maria (Bruckner) is borderline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt: well, the official title is "Main Title (The West Wing)". its common name is... ehh, there's not much of a clear consensus. I was considering going with theme music of The West Wing as a WP:NDESC, but I figured it'd be easier to go with the official title. It's hard to know how widespread the piece is; it's the major work of a major-ish television show by a minor composer. take what you will from that, i guess. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, let me think about it. I have an open FAC which I have neglected for too long, and this seems in no way time-critical, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt: could not be less important the moment :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I got that ping when I handled the last of the open questions in the FAC ;) - The article title should be the common name, that's a little problem. The official name can be mentioned somewhere later. We have all these articles of Universities with fancy (and changing) names, but the article title is typically just University of Xtown. The tricky thing here seems to me that the official name looks like we'd disambiguate the common name. I recommend to not start the lead with the misleading thingy, but say something as shown above. Same in the hook. - Do we happen to have any similar case? - Next musing: If it's an official title, why have part of it italic? - Next question: do we a reference that it is the official title? Have it in an external link, perhaps? On the internet, I see alternatively "West Wing Main Title" and "The West Wing (Main Title)". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Off-WP plotting
Hi, theleekycauldron. I have received your private email and I find it disturbing, and cannot be involved in that sort of thing. It would appear that a number of unnamed people are involved in manipulating you, in your innocence, into plotting in advance a "community discussion" in which, you say, "The worst outcome for everyone involved is [the subject of discussion] leaving DYK; that's not at all the objective, and it'd undoubtedly be a loss for the project". Your glaring omission here is that your potential subject of discussion has has never done anything wrong or broken any WP rules as far as your complaint is concerned, so you have no grounds for complaint or for raising formal community discussion. You are privately plotting against a veteran editor who is an expert on their subject, who has created or assisted in a huge number of well-informed articles, who has never done WP or any individual editor any harm. What you need is greater understanding, (and in the case of some other editors who may or may not be involved in this, perhaps a little more education).

As far as I can make out, there is one editor who appears to follow your quarry around, wherever the quarry nominates articles for DYK, and then they jump in and complain about opera being "niche" subject matter, and strongly push their personal wish to minimise or even remove that subject matter because only a hook specifically aimed at a broad audience has any value at DYK. There are several problems associated with that attitude. One is that opera is in no way a niche subject in, say, Italy, Germany and those countries which used to be in the Soviet bloc. So that editor is attempting to impose a New World view on Wikipedia subject matter. Opera has always been accepted as a valid WP subject, and most opera articles have been accepted as notable. That means that we have no right to dismiss hooks on that subject as "niche", to be minimised or substituted with human-interest material. Another point is that we all know that advertising needs to be targeted at the right audience, and a DYK hook has to work in roughly the same way. If you divest an opera DYK hook of operatic subject-matter, you will alienate the opera buffs, and cheat the general reader into clicking through to an article which will not interest them, to put it politely. WP is supposed to provide something for everyone, but that doesn't mean that every audience has to be tricked into reading everything. Thus you will get more valid views if you target the DYK hook for the appropriate audience. Ultimately, numbers of clicks are fun to list, and it's fun to get more than 5,000 clicks, but what really matters is whether those who click on the hooks reach a page (or at least an intro para) that they want to read.

I have tried at length to add information like the above to some DYK templates, in order to help a certain troll understand the situation, but there has so far been no positive improvement in their behaviour. I'm guessing that they either ignore my comments, or that they just don't understand what I'm saying. It is that troll (and maybe also the unnamed editors involved in the off-WP plot), who need to be dealt with. What they are doing amounts, in my opinion, to victimisation, even if that is not what they intend.

If you don't like or understand certain subject-matter DYKs, just leave them alone and let others review them. There are plenty of DYK noms about popular culture out there which are better suited to your taste and expertise. If you don't do that, and continue to allow trolls to manipulate you, in your innocence, into offline plotting against a hard-working and dedicated veteran editor who has done you no harm - one day you will look back on your actions and feel terribly ashamed. Storye book (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what this is about, but if the question is are there too many niche opera DYK hooks I'm wondering if anyone has actually crunched the data on article viewership. In any case, TLC is a very experienced DYK volunteer so I think assuming their 'innocence' is being manipulated by trolls is an unnecessarily uncivil assumption, . We all have strong opinions as passionate editors, but we're here to increase global access to free information not to break stuff for no reason. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 09:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * [watching:) sounds like about me, but I couldn't care less - let's write articles, everything besides that is a waste of time --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that the above is a waste of time, but I had to write it because I had to make it clear upfront that I was not associated with, or implicated in, their off-WP behaviour. Let us hope that all this ends now. All I want to do, too, is to write articles. Storye book (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Storye book: Hi there! I appreciate you voicing your concerns—i think there might have been some miscommunication on this one. In the interest of full disclosure, let's step back and take a look at what happened and why. Over the past week or so, I received emails and talk page messages from a few editors, concerned about the repeated discussions over @Gerda Arendt's hooks. They felt that they were having the same discussion multiple times, and wanted to find a way out of the cycle—the repetitive, one-off discussions were becoming a waste of the time and energy of not just the other dyk regulars, but gerda's as well. We didn't want to block all of her hooks or anything, but we did want the bickering to stop.  Before starting to discuss anything, we agreed that the absolute worst-case this-definitely-should-be-avoided-at-all-costs scenario is Gerda leaving DYK for one reason or another. That's why we chose to keep this off-wiki—we wanted to continue talking without risking public embarrassment for one of our foremost contributors.  So, we talked, and brainstormed, and looked for ways out of the Groundhog Day-esque loop we were in. But given the pool of editors, we knew there was a risk of moving too fast. Of running with something too harsh, of accidentally hurting the feelings of our colleague and friend. So, I reached out to you, and I reached out to another editor close to gerda—not to help us plot against her, but to offer a counterargument. To put the brakes on bad ideas, make sure no one went off the reservation, provide good advice as we try to navigate the problem. Of course, we hit a snag there.  I'm sure that the discussions on the subject of these hooks and their interestingness to a broad audience are going to continue for a while; for now, I need sleep, so I'd like to take this last paragraph to clarify a few things.
 * First, no one was engaged in plotting against gerda—the idea that we meant any ill will towards her is facially incorrect.
 * Second, there are no trolls, no puppets, no puppeteers; we're all playing on one team here, and that's wikipedia's team. i even have the t-shirt to prove it! :) No one here has any distaste for anyone else or their work; we disagree on some things, and that's okay, because we respect each other as editors and people.
 * Third, I actually like opera and classical music :) I've been studying classical violin for a significant majority of my life. No one here dislikes all opera hooks, or thinks it's too niche a genre for the main page. It is at a disadvantage of lower popularity within our audience, but that in and of itself is disqualifying for no one. Our aim isn't to appeal to the lowest common denominator; it's to raise it.
 * So that's all—we saw a problem we wanted to solve, and wanted to talk about it with some folks who'd provide insight. I'd be happy to answer any further questions you might have when I wake up tomorrow morning. take care :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a simple solution: one particular editor leaves my nominations alone for the month of April. My nominations are open for all to inspect, I am open to listening to concerns by others, on a case by case basis.
 * When I review - which I did some hundred times, I assume in good faith that the nominator, who knows the subject best, suggested the best possible thing. Sometimes I think something else would be better, and discuss it with them. Check my noms, try it. I have approved many hooks that I find not interesting at all, - readers differ, writers differ: the broader the spectrum of what we say the richer is the Main page. End of sermon. - I'm writing about a German cleric right know, and that's such a welcome break from Ukrainians who died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well now you have what you were looking for: my counterargument, above. And, that's a good idea. Storye book (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi leek. Understanding the good work you do around here, I will echo Storye book's friendly advice to withdraw from that email discussion. I know that had good intentions, but it sounds like it's heading towards the kind of off-wiki coordination that gets participants in trouble. DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5
There is one open slot in prep 5 which is the next set for promotion to queue. Just posting here in case you're interested in filling that slot. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @SL93: yoinked a hook from p3; i'll fill p3 later tonight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just trying to make sure that the next prep can be moved. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A DYK Nom question — Can you take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Normandy massacres....
and tell me if my conclusions are wrong about the article's eligibility for DYK? I've never run into a DYK Review situation where, as a Reviewer, I had to turn down an article because the article doesn't comply with WP policy (in this particular article's case, the article is largely reliant on a single-source). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Shearonink: Thanks for dropping by! you may want to mark it with  (Symbol possible vote.svg) instead of outright rejecting it—gives the nominator some time to fix the issue. However, you're absolutely correct—the nomination can't go forward until the maintenance tag is no longer applicable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do that. I feel badly, the creator/editor has obviously put in a lot of work on this article and I did and do find the subject to be interesting but the sourcing...is problematic. Thanks for your input, Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of GIF scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 7 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/May 7, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese dama
Hi theleekycauldron. Thank you for promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese dama to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1! wrote, "I also find that Tbhotch's ALT1 hook is the hookiest, and that the addition of quotation marks removes the direct reference to a stereotype that is widely held in some but not all communities where English is one of the main languages." Drmies recommended adding quotation marks around "big mamas" in the hook which I am fine with. If you agree with adding quotation marks around "big mamas", would you modify the current hook to add them? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, Cunard! happy to add said quotation marks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cunard, I thought I did that. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Drmies, no worries, that's completely fine. It was my oversight to not include the quotes when I proposed ALT1 based on Tbhotch's hook. Cunard (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do
Re: this. The current reception is very poor and if it is not improved the article should face AfD. I do appreciate your interest in this, as of course it would be better to save this then to delete this. In the meantime, I think the notability tag indicating insufficent reception / lack of any serious analysis / etc. Should be restored. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Piotrus: It's reasonable to say that the sources currently in the article don't show notability, but that tag isn't notability, because notability isn't about the state of the article. sources exist, perhaps? as for my WP:THREE, I give you, , , , , and more (okay, yes, that's five, sorry). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given your argument, yes, sources exist > notability :) The links are all paywalled to me, but in either case, is there a chance over the next few days you could find time to expand the reception section a bit? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus: hmm, no promises—my plate isn't empty at the moment and McGarry isn't so high on my west wing priority list. But I'll see if I can put in some boilerplate to remove that doubt, I've got spring break this week anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pleae note I've also tagged this article, where the reception section IMHO needs improvement as well. Feel free to change the tag to 'sources exist' and add it to your to-do list :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus: For that one, I'll leave it alone—I'm thinking both it and Matt Santos can be merged to second presidential election on The West Wing, a plotline that's looking more and more notable the more later-season content I read. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the reception section of the Leo McGarry article, I have sourced some comments and quotations on the subject of the character's alcoholism. The comments make the point that A. the characterisation of McGarry as a "recovering" alcoholic and B. the compassion that he deserves, are valuable and effective contributions to public understanding of addiction. I think that those comments remove any doubt about notability of the character, and I think that the article can continue to stand alone on those grounds alone. I agree with the above comments, here, that much of the article still needs citations, but there are plenty of sources out there, for that, since the show had, and still has, a strong following. Storye book (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Storye book Thank you for expanding this. This is a bit subjective, but at this stage I still think a tag, in this case, sources exist, is warranted, but I certainly don't indent to press this to AfD assuming editors are willing to work on this in the foreseeable future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

teach me English
"is said to have a style" - can we say so about someone who died? - "to have had ...", "to have danced with ..."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt: sounds like you don't need me to teach you english; you made it punchier and more accurate at the same time. kudos! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you - and like to hear that because there are these days when I think I can't make myself understood. you didn't answer my question ;) - you read my mind: just today (updating WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Recent deaths) I thought: why don't the bios of Ukrainians who died not go to the Main page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt the wording sounds good to me. Only this is that usually you don't need the word "have" - so things like "had a style" and had danced with .... Its good even with the have, but removing it sounds less wordy.
 * Like i said your english is better that some native speakers i know. Keep up the good work! Rlink2 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you! my question wasn't as much for the "have" but if we can say "he is said to have (or "... to dance)" after he died. I see people change the tense of "He has two children" to "He had two children" when someone dies. On the other hand, I didn't intend to give away that he died in the hook already, - bad enough to find out, and why, when in the article. That's why I tried that his style was described which leaves that open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt: yep, your switch from present to past tense was correct. That was my bad :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Trial of Neumann and Sass
Hi, thank you for promoting the Trial of Neumann and Sass hook, I would be grateful for any feedback on my review (and comments on the article talk page) as this is the first time I have reviewed a (historically) controversial nomination. TSventon (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, TSventon! I think your review was good; you flagged a problem, others thought it wasn't as large a problem, and on respectful disagreement the nomination moved forward once the article received that copyedit. I don't think there's anything you could've or should've done differently in that respect. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reassurance. I was uncertain about the level of NPOV needed for DYK and therefore raised it as a potential issue, I will be less uncertain next time. TSventon (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The DYK Barnstar

 * Thanks, evrik! a pleasure to work with you :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Fosterfields
Hi, how are you? I'm here to ask why you failed the nomination I was doing a QPQ on. I didn't indicate it was ready yet. I had issues I was waiting on from the nominator still. Did I use the wrong icon or something? Was time up; I know it's been here awhile. I didn't ask anyone to come look at it yet. It's at Template:Did you know nominations/Fosterfields Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there, dawnleelynn! I closed the nomination because Thriley seemed to indicate that they wouldn't be expanding the article to reach the required length, thus withdrawing the nomination; if I'm wrong, I'd be happy to revert my close. p.s., if you want to learn some DYK lingo: one "does a QPQ" for their own nomination by reviewing another article. So, if I nominate article A, and review article B, the person who reviews my article A might say "a QPQ has been done" if I've reviewed article B, but I wouldn't say "I did a QPQ on article B". You reviewed Fosterfields, thereby doing a QPQ for whichever article you're going to use the review for. I don't know, I find slang and in-community speak interesting, I thought you might as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi leaky, can you reopen the nomination? I think there is still a possibility Evedawn99 may expand the article further. I was thinking of doing a bit myself as well. Thriley (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank for that explanation. I am always in for some lingo. The nominator asked if you could reopen the nomination here on this message section. They didn't do the ping so you wouldn't have seen it. Thanks for the help. dawnleelynn(talk) 14:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the reopen I was confused. Of course you saw it. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 14:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done- thanks, all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I slightly moved your GAN
Howdy! Just wanted to let you know that I moved The Bigg Chill from the "Economics and business" section of GAN to "Agriculture, food and drink", which is where food and beverage companies tend to go. Since that category is at the top and is now empty except for your nom, it also might get noticed sooner now! —  Ghost River  21:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, GhostRiver! can't argue with that :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Main Title (The West Wing)
— Maile (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

when you prep set for so long that you begin to hear the birds chirping through the darkness...
that is when you throw in the towel and stop writing "ALT2 to T:DYK/P1". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)"}}

Your GA nomination of The Bigg Chill
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Bigg Chill you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bigg Chill
The article The Bigg Chill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Bigg Chill for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Amy Gardner
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Promotion
Hello, thank you for all you do. As you may know just recently I started promoting article. Well there are some I feel can run without an image, so I promote them sans image. Someone took exception and I want to ask what you may do in this situation. Thank in advance. Bruxton (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, Bruxton! I did see that you're just starting out; I think you're doing a fantastic job so far, so thanks for your hard work :) Well, like any criticism, the first thing you do is step back and re-evaluate with the new point of view; give it a fair shake, see if they've got a reasonable enough point to change your view. If you're still convinced that this one doesn't need to and shouldn't go in the image slot, try to explain your thinking. Why did you choose to exclude this one? Why is the hook still interesting without it?  there are a couple of compromises you can come to; if there's not enough prep sets for the image, you can depromote it, try to give it a later image slot. Or, you can try and work out a more interesting hook that doesn't rely on the image. Or, if you feel firmly about it, make your reasoning clear and try to come to a resolution. Most editors are reasonable about this one; ask for another opinion if you need it. Good luck! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will de-promote. The editor seemed to feel very strongly about it. To me it was just an image of the pyramids that I had seen 100s of times. But I could be all wet too. Thanks for the help and the compliment. Bruxton (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I just saw your 2 submissions
It's a bit late to include them now and it looks like we have about 18 articles for publication tomorrow, which is about the max. But it looks like you have some good ideas and a nice relaxed wriring style. That could be good for several regular topics. Picking a few off the top of my head; "Young Wikipedians" "Do you know DYK?" maybe some GLAM topics. Whatever floats your boat is usually the best thing to write about. We'll be selecting a new editor-in-chief in the next week or so (I'll be sticking around as a reporter) so put a full article in for submission and notify the new EiC. If you want somebody to edit it, just ask me. Good luck. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @Smallbones! will keep in mind :) not sure I could do a "young wikipedians" type beat (my experience isn't so different, i don't think), and I already do a DYK newsletter independently; but I'll think of some regular bits I could do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing DYK
Hey, you promoted the DYK nom for crimson-headed partridge about two weeks ago, but it still hasn't appeared on DYK and isn't in any of the preps or queues, so it seems to have gone missing. AryKun (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @AryKun: oy, i'm so sorry! I was in the middle of promotion, and then I asked instead if you could crop the image a smidge; forgot to not close the nomination! I'll relist. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amy Gardner
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amy Gardner you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammielh -- Sammielh (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)