User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2022/July

DYK hook about Tuva Hansen

I saw that you edited the hook, and I don't really know what's the best way to comment on it, so hope it's ok that I write it here. (Is there a better way to do it?) I think I prefer to phrase it in past tense if we are going to keep it closer to the source, e.g. "... that Tuva Hansen and her dog have gotten several million views on multiple of their videos on TikTok?". Rogalendingen (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rogalendingen: I've made some changes to that effect :) in the future, yes, the best way to get an issue like this is to come to my talk. That's generally the quickest/quietest way to get it done if we both agree. If we don't, then it's probably time to go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean this hook: "... that Norweigan footballer Tuva Hansen and her dog can receive up to several million views per video on TikTok?"? In that case, can you update it to the hook I suggested above? Or explain how I can do it myself? In theory, anyone can get up to several million views, so it is better to state that it actually has happened. "Norwegian" is also spelled wrong in the suggested hook, so it has to be edited anyway. Rogalendingen (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rogalendingen: It currently says "... that Norwegian footballer Tuva Hansen and her dog have received millions of views on several TikTok videos" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's great. Thank you so much! Rogalendingen (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Paul Lester Errington

I'm just seeing if you can promote Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Lester Errington when you get a chance, but with the original hook. I prefer it and Bruxton saw no issues with it. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: I'll take a look tomorrow morning, but a U.S. bio might not need promoting right now. Oh, and I'm happy to fill the empty prep tomorrow as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I brought this up because it is one of the oldest approved biographies. I also feel that it should have already been promoted instead of mentioning alt hooks. SL93 (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you forget? SL93 (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

yep, for sure, sorry about that. Getting into it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Yeah, there's room – I'll see if I can't sneak it in. I'll be taking care of all the of the empty preps today... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's fine. Thanks for your help. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that prep 5 has two hooks about conservationists. I'm not sure if that will be a problem. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: I'll do some swaps. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but really, you can't balance on everything, and it gives me a chance to relate one of the most unexpected turns of phrase one will ever find in a math or statistics book:

"Specify the remaining fascist"

From R. A. Fisher, The Design of Experiments (1935):

The following puzzle is of service in familiarising the mind with the combinatorial relationships underlying the use of the Latin square, and the like, in experimental design :—

Sixteen passengers on a liner discover that they are an exceptionally representative body. Four are Englishmen, four are Scots, four are Irish, and four are Welsh. There are also four each of four different ages, 35, 45, 55, and 65, and no two of the same age are of the same nationality. By profession also fôur are lawyers, four soldiers, four doctors, and four clergymen, and no two of the same profession are of the same age, or of the same nationality.

It appears, also, that four are bachelors, four married, four widowed, and four divorced, and that no two of the same marital status are of the same profession, or the same age, or the same nationality. Finally, four are conservatives, four liberals, four socialists, and four fascists, and no two of the same political sympathies are of the same marital status or the same profession, or the same age, or the same nationality.

Three of the fascists are known to be an unmarried English lawyer of 65, a married Scotch soldier of 55, and a widowed Irish doctor of 45. It is then easy to specify the remaining fascist.

EEng 01:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: is it the

spoiler!

35-year-old bachelor Welsh clergy?

(I personally also find the subconscious adjective order quite interesting...) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your question is so elementary that I'm going to have my chauffer answer it [1]. EEng 01:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I definitely thought it was going to be a more interesting logic puzzle than it actually turned out to be. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Well that's just the warmup. I omitted Fisher's main question: It is further given that the Irish socialist is 35, the conservative of 45 is a Scotchman, and the Englishman of 55 is a clergyman. What do you know of the Welsh lawyer? EEng 01:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: Should be the underlined row? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Preps

I'm done with building preps for a while, if ever again. I feel the same way about prep work that I sometimes feel about my paid job - taken advantage of by doing the work that most people don't want to do. At least I'm paid at my actual job. Sure, it's easy for people to whine about how editors build preps, but they aren't doing any of that work. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: That's okay – I totally understand how you feel. It's a rough job, and it hasn't exactly gotten easier. I'd welcome you back; but I've got it for now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope I haven't added much to the feelings. I'd volunteer to build preps if I was a native speaker, and if I'd know what our public wants. I was told again and again that I don't know, and the first will never change, so - sorry - I'll rely on others. I liked the preps you (both) built (even if I was sometimes - rather rarely given the total numbers - not happy with individual hook choices). Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, given how much copyediting we see after prep building: native speaker skills are not a requirement. —Kusma (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Not a requirement, but I'd just feel uneasy. Many hooks, I simply don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: prep builders don't get enough thanks and get yelled at too much for their work. Prep to queue promotion is the easier job, admins don't get yelled at quite that much, and the updater bot signs its notices in the admin's name, not the prep builder's. As a (not very active) promoting admin I certainly appreciate the work you are doing. —Kusma (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

I own the copyright on the "Arbor tree break" pun, but since it's you I'm not going ask for royalties. EEng 03:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: Ah, thanks – I was afraid I'd have to "come to a sudden arboreal stop". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Another one

Series of tubes seems like a fun one as well. Hope you've had a nice weekend :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: My ability to create content has disappeared down a deep hole somewhere. I'll let you know when I'm back in the game :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure! Mine as well, sadly. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Lorenz DYK

I see a couple issues with that Richard Lorenz (artist) DYK. Besides that fact not appearing in the article, the phrasing is topsy-turvy and creates a trailing sentence fragment. Not sure how you'd handle it, but I think reordering the hook to read "that in 1909, Richard Lorenz became..." is a smart move. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I interpreted He became the preeminent artist painting in the western genre to match, although the wording is a bit wonky. As for the phrasing, it'd have to be "... that, in 1909," which is clunky. Past discussions on this at ERRORS have resulted in that sentence fragment being the best option to avoid an excess of commas or grammatical ambiguity/incorrectness. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This suits me. Sorry to interrupt your work! Nice job and thanks for the clarifications! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Pbritti – thanks for stopping by! Always good to hear from you :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

	The Puerto Rico National Merit Medal
	Thank you for your work on Frank H. Wadsworth.--evrik (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Claudia Octavia

On 8 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Claudia Octavia, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Nero's divorce of Claudia Octavia (pictured) caused public outcry – so he had her executed instead? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Octavia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Claudia Octavia), 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, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Art

Good morning, What did you think of the hooks on the Lorenz nomination? After it was pulled from the prep we settled on one or two. Cheers Bruxton (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Hey! Looks like it's approved again, so I'll keep an eye out when building sets. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Gracias! Bruxton (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Late DYK reviews

Re what you said here: I did exactly that a little over two weeks ago; no one seemed to notice then (and that is the first time in almost 15 years of doing DYK that such a request on my part went totally ignored, sailing into the archives like a leaf floating on a swift current). That nom isn't even the oldest of any current nom I'm involved with that's unreviewed, either ... is something distracting everyone there?

The other nom is an even longer article, though, and I agree with you that people (especially newer editors looking to make an impression and build up QPQs) probably shy away from longer articles. This happens at GAN, too (I recently failed Indian Space Research Organisation, which was nominated way back in January 2021 ... it was well over 200K long, which as you could see from my review was perhaps a little longer than it needed to be (among some other issues).

Of course, at DYK, it really isn't necessary to go through the article with a fine-tooth comb ... I know we've been asking more of reviewers in recent years, but I remember back in the Old Days when that page was a lot less systematized than it is now, and all we needed to do really was check the age length, and that the hook was sourced (hell, when I started at DYK, we didn't even need to do that). To me that's really the most important thing still (but I still check for copyvio if the article is long enough, and if I see other issues which make me think we absolutely don't want this article linked from the Main Page as is, I'll flag them), so I'm not daunted by a long article, although I admit it's a bit challenging to have to search through it for a fact that may not be worded the same way it is in the book).

I wonder if there's something we could do to address this, at both DYK and GA. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

PSHAW

Hey, sorry to be here with a PSHAW problem.... In this promotion, PSHAW erroneously (but understandably) ended the hook at the "?" rather than including the full "{{-?}}". Isn't it annoying to have to deal with every little special case?  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I see you've already taken care of this. Thanks for all you do around here.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  17:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mandarax: ah, yes, sorry, meant to tell you! bin crazy round here theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, here's another of those "special cases" I was talking about. PSHAW used the wrong hook, presumably because the nom page had both the original (incorrect and struck) hook and a slightly different one labeled "ALT0" (incidentally, also two ALT1s).  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  02:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Mandarax It is possible that I just became confused by the tool. ALT0, which is the hook that I wanted to promote, shows as being blank. It seems to be from the three extra ... at the beginning. SL93 (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

So there could be three potential issues to eventually think about: the extra ellipsis problem, how to handle duplicate ALT labels, and the previously-discussed issue with struck hooks (which is complicated by factors such as the various html tags and templates used for striking, and the portions that get struck: before or after each of the ALT label, ellipsis, and question mark).  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  03:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Mick Jagger

Hi Leekycauldron! Thank you for the ping above...I'd forgotten about you and ""Tumbling Dice". I hope that you enjoyed it! The singer on that track -- Mick Jagger -- is currently up for FAC. If you have the time and desire, would you be willing to take a look at it and leave your thoughts at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mick Jagger/archive1? If not, I understand. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, TheSandDoctor! Still on the playlist :) Mick Jagger? Yeesh, I wish I could, but the size is just completely out of my depth. I don't think I'd be able to put in the time necessary to do it well. Always nice of you to drop by, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that it is still on the playlist! If you want some other suggestions, I can easily make some. The Rolling Stones also has a lot of albums on it worth a looksie (for ideas) sometime, if you have the time. I understand being unable to for Jagger and that's totally fine. My next question was going to be a peer review request for the Stones main article, but I will refrain from it. I am thinking that Tumbling Dice might actually be a good one for FA...what do you think? Not asking you to review it at this time, just your opinion on the idea. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for A Proportional Response

On 16 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Proportional Response, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charlie Young was introduced into The West Wing over concerns of a lack of racial diversity in casting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Proportional Response. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A Proportional Response), 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, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Quirkies

Hi there leeky, and thank you for the amazing amount of work you do at DYK (but please, don't overdo it and give yourself burnout!)

I'm just wondering why you have left the quirky slots open in preps 1 and 2. Are you waiting for some extra special hooks to come along? Because I can see plenty of potential quirkies on the approved page right now, and am happy to fill the slots if you don't have other plans for them. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Gatoclass! I recall being a bit short on quirkies (I've only gotten more particular as time goes by, plus there's U.S. and bio balances to think about), but you're more than welcome to promote what you wish! Do try the new promoter tool :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass I have filled the two quirky slots. I'm just hoping that admins moving preps to queues won't be an issue now that we will be at two sets a day. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Theleekycauldron/Archive/2022. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 06:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Shabbat banner

Template:Shabbat banner has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Shabbat today

Template:Shabbat today has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:J. J. Leek

Hello, Theleekycauldron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:J. J. Leek, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

PSHAW bug

Hi leeky, when I was promoting articles today, PSHAW wouldn't load for Template:Did you know nominations/Burns & McDonnell. I therefore had to close it manually. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Also had a problem promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Hana wa Dare no Mono?, where the page would freeze when I tried to submit the PSHAW. I heard you were on vacation so please do not feel free to rush back and deal with this. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Z1720! I probably won't have the headspace to fix any PSHAW issues for a little while – in the meantime, the most helpful thing you can do with an error is to report what your javascript console is telling you at the time of the error. There's also a good chance that copy/pasting the URL into a new tab fixes the issue, just to refresh and try again. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Wrath Month

On 22 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wrath Month, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wrath Month. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wrath Month), 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.

Schwede66 00:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 9,509 views (790.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

C. J. Cregg scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 August 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 11, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gog the Mild! I'll take a crack – I notice you scheduled it before the FAC's even passed :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I had great faith in you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of C. J. Cregg

Congratulations, Theleekycauldron! The article you nominated, C. J. Cregg, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)