User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2021/September

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jewish German comedians

A tag has been placed on Category:Jewish German comedians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Day of Reckoning (2016 film)

The reviewer added my username to the DYK for fixing the article and hook. It was added incorrectly which is why I think you didn't add it to the prep upon promotion. SL93 (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ah, sorry about that—I'll add your name theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The DYK Barnstar
		Hi Theleekycauldron, a little appreciation of all the hard work you've put into the DYK space in the past few weeks. There is often a shortage of people willing to build prep sets and take part in the other grunt work, and thanks in part to your efforts the large backlog has now been reduced. Keep up the good work! — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, thank you so much! It's been such a joy to participate in DYK so far :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support! - Omas gegen Rechts - enjoy strong women! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:) thank ya! It's rosh hashana for me too! And for sure, I'm thinking about strong women today. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thanks to you, we have a rich Main page today: the first TFA by a promising author, the pictured DYK by same friend LouisAlain who is discouraged by an AN discussion, and one of the Recent deaths. Enjoy, you good spirit of prep-building! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help out! Thanks for your nominations, they're all much fun to dig into. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

I approved ALT1 for Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Bailyn. SL93 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: my mistake. I'll change the hook, but it won't be in the tail slot, so I'll move it up to P3. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sharri MacDonald at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated!

Thanks for being brave enough to put us all out of our misery. In the spirit of helping you been an even better closer, two things:

(1) Instead of repeating/summarizing the proposal in the close, it probably would have been better to have simply said that the proposal, as stated, is adopted.
(2) A side effect of repeating the proposal in the close is that you inadvertently injected something that actually isn't there i.e. the specification that (if you're >20, and we're in the mode) an extra QPQ will be required per article. In fact, it's pretty clear that (and this is my fault) the proposal is at least somewhat ambiguous on that -- is the requirement an extra QPQ per article, or per nomination? The difference only matters when there are multiple articles in a single hook/nomination e.g. if it's a 3-article hook, are 6 QPQs required, or just 4? Buried in the discussion was that I took the view it should be 4 (because 6 seems like an AWFUL lot) and BMS (or someone) took the view it should be 6. That wasn't actually resolved, and I didn't press the point because the last thing we needed was more confusion injected into an already highly confused process.

But we're over the big hump now, and issue (2) above -- a relatively minor point -- can be ironed out later. So if I may suggest, don't take any of my suggestions above. Just let sleeping dogs lie for now. Thanks again for your bravery. If things go bad I'll see you get a decent burial, don't worry. E Eng 05:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I appreciate the input! I'll take it, particularly issue (2), under advisement for next time. I'm going to start a second RfC on the details of this—there's some stuff that does need to be ironed out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you overlooked the part where I said "let sleeping dogs lie for now". E Eng 06:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you underestimated my impatience and general desire to get things done. Also, i got some hate for closing the discussion on my talk page (i deleted it), so that probably played in—i wasn't sure the dogs were really asleep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Take a tip from the master: when someone leaves you a nasty message, just leave it there for all to see (responding if you wish, of course). You'll learn to wear them with pride. E Eng 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: One day I'll get there, but it was interfering with my ability to do the things I wanted to. Some of us aren't flameproof yet as you are, and maybe the best thing for us to do is just get the fire extinguisher. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider it though, I literally thought "it's what EEng would do"—but i just had to get it out of my head. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK discussion close

That was a very disappointing close. You commented multiple times in the discussion but still saw fit to close it in favor. There was obviously no consensus. By all appearances you simply counted votes, ignored the trend of the discussion, and ignored policy-based arguments. Really shameful. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

building prep sets

Thank you for quality articles such as SLAPP Suits, A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Vote and Julie Schmit-Albin, for building prep sets for DYK with a keen eye on diversity of topics, such as on 9/11, and an open ear for my complaints, and uplifting replies, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2650 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oh, thank you so much! it's been a pleasure working with you so far (also, 2650 is a nice round number which is fun) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

today, as you probably and possibly made in prep: moar music, Beethoven, and my brother was in the orchestra, 10 July --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Vaccines (Last Week Tonight)

Hello, Theleekycauldron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vaccines (Last Week Tonight), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Dunn

Hi, TheLeekyCauldron! I sorta thought that if you were reviewing Dunn, you would be intrigued by his resignation after only 3 weeks. I followed your example and moved two of the hard-copy cites closer to the description of the resignation, since the two hard-copy cites also deal with it. Thanks! --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess, @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:—midway through the promotion process, I changed my mind and promoted ALT2—you can see I left notes on that on the nom page and in the edit summary. I copied the citation over because I thought I'd promote the first one, but there was no point reverting after I changed my mind. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dunn's done; moved off main page. Thanks again. :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

aha, excellent pun. happy to help :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Joni Albrecht

On 15 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joni Albrecht, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a resolution introduced into the Nebraska Legislature by Joni Albrecht praised Julie Schmit-Albin as "never one to let a public official waffle on pro-life legislation"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joni Albrecht. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joni Albrecht), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiffany Zulkosky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KYUK.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Theleekycauldron/Archive/2021,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Modifying the hook

Hello. You modified the hook of my DYK nomination. I am quite opposed to it, as I feel the current one you put is less precise. Veverve (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: how so? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "canons" in general which contradict each others, but some canons. Also, the new hook introduces the concept of canon without providing a link to the article about it. Lastly, the E. O. canon law is not composed only of canons. Veverve (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

could fix that
i don't think it's quite necessary to introduce that first—there is a pitfall to putting other links before your article, it drains away attention
well then why is it called that? that's weird

aight, i'll change the hook. but that's still weird. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is named this way because the canons were used in Early Christianity, and because the basis for canon law are often the canons. However, canons are not the only constituent of most canon law, for the expression designates any "ordinances and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority (Church leadership), for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members." For example the canon law of the Catholic Church also uses mostly canons, but also includes the Bible, and episcopal and papal decisions. In E. O. canon law, other decrees such as a tomos or the Stoglav are or were also part of this canon law. In the Anglican communion, the sources for canon law include but are not limitend to: "constitutions, canons, rules, regulations, and other instruments." (p. 19). Veverve (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ya learn something new every day (especially in this line of volunteering)! Thanks for letting me know, i'll revert the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Imperial Air Routes

The Alt was better. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I'm happy to swap out the hook if you feel strongly about it—although I don't see that anyone expressed a preference on the nom page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both were approved but I still think the Alt is stronger. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you have a strong preference between the two, I'm happy to swap out the hook. For next time, I would politely request that you note your preference on the nom page, to avoid this discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are happy to swap, why revert? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

because while I'm happy to work with you and discuss with you on the hook, I'm less than happy to give nominators general discretion over which of their hooks gets promoted. You're free to ping me, talk to me, hound me to change it (no, no hounding), but I'd rather keep final discretion over the hook choice, because it's not always as trivial as wording order. I'll go swap out the hook now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Philafrenzy: nominators have never been allowed to change hooks on their nominations once they've gone to prep. They are welcome to request changes at WT:DYK, but not modify them directly. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stuff

Leeky, love your enthusiasm, really I do, but miscellaneous DYK discussions don't need closing. If they've run their course just archive them. E Eng 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: would if I could, but I've gotten reverted before, because apparently even the discussions that get resolved in one day (and then the hook appears on the main page in a couple more days) have to stay on the talk page for seven days before they can get archived. The open discussions clog up my headspace and make it more difficult to participate in the discussions that matter, especially when WT:DYK is already so long. I'll archive what I can. I know I'm new here, but you're going to have to trust at some point that i'm not just enthusiastic or button-happy, and do actually consider what to do once in a while. In the meantime, I'll archive the discussions that are over seven days old—it did slip my mind last night. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

correction: there aren't any that can be archived. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

correction to correction: it's when the thread was created, not when it was last resolved, so some of them were archived,thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, to the extent dates matter it's the date of the last post that counts, absolutely not the date the thread was opened. But I don't know who told you you have to wait seven days, because that's nonsense; I archived a bunch just now. However, deciding whether a thread's ready for archiving does take some discretion at times. Is there likely to be more comment (useful comment, anyway)? Is the issue likely to reignite? Do you think everyone who cares has had a chance to see it? Is there some lesson in the thread that's good for others to see (for example, WT:Did_you_know#BLP_and_hooks has a useful reminder at the end)? E Eng 21:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. I'll keep that in mind going forward, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Architextiles

Hi! Theleekycauldron I appreciate your work on the subject. Should I wait or is there anything else that needs to be corrected? Kindly advise. Thanks RV (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi @RAJIVVASUDEV! i left some comments on the nom page, we should clear that up before approval/ theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Dinah John

Hi Leeky, re your comment here, it's in Laurence M. Hauptman's publication of her name. He is probably the most authoritative (living) source on the Iroquois, so I have no reason to assume he'd be wrong. I don't believe the Iroquois really had much of a written language, so that could be it... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: that makes sense! thanks for getting back to me :) also, call me leek theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mondeghili

Hallo, and thanks for reviewing! I think the image is freely licensed. If you click on the "Freely Licensed" link on the DYK Template, there are the tags that allow free attribution, and "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0" is one of them. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Alex2006! I did see the CC ShareAlike 4.0 tag, but I couldn't verify that the image actually had that status, since i don't know who took the image or whether they release it under that license. I could be misreading, but until that's cleared up, it doesn't look to me like there's solid evidence that the image is freely licensed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Theleekycauldron, and thanks for your answer. Now I understand: I thought that for you the tag was not clear, but the problem is the author. :-( The Image has been uploaded on Commons by an Italian User on behalf of another user. I wrote to the former today, let's see if we can clarify the situation. It is clear that as it stands the image tag is invalid, we need an explicit statement from the author about this. Alex2006 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! do let me know what they say theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lori Gramlich

On 27 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lori Gramlich, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lori Gramlich, a survivor of sexual abuse in her childhood, introduced legislation that made it easier for sexual abuse survivors in Maine to file civil lawsuits against their abusers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lori Gramlich. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lori Gramlich), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquelyn Reingold

I saw that you changed "did not" in the Jacquelyn Reingold hook to "didn't". It should be changed back to "did not" per MOS:CONTRACTIONS. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: I'm aware of MOS:CONTRACTIONS—This isn't the most major thing in the world, but I'd still argue that the contraction lets the hook flow more, and that it should be kept per WP:IAR. We're not always going for rigor and formality—we're trying to keep it interesting. If you disagree, I'm not going to stick to my guns too heavily on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Did not and didn't mean the same thing so I'm not sure how the contraction makes it flow more. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that going for the most formal language can stifle the flow/make it read stuffily. We're trying to lure readers in, and I think being a little loose with the rules on this one makes the text more inviting. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. If we do it to this hook, it's simple enough to do it to every hook as to lure readers in. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how about we sidestep this, then? let's change "didn't know anything" to "knew nothing"—that's the language used in the article anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that keeps the flow, doesn't add stuffiness, and we don't have to use the contraction. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]