Template:Did you know nominations/Nippy (Better Call Saul)

@Dcdiehardfan: It probably doesn't matter all that much how you do it, but the recommended best practice is to simply add new hooks when making changes. I tend not to do that, but I think you're supposed to do it that way. Also, it's fascinating how much opinions change over time. I always found the BB/BCS fan community super toxic, and when "Nippy" originally came out, I seem to recall fans hating it on Reddit. Glad to see those vocal and highly negative voices have subsided over time. I tend not to participate in fan communities for this reason. If you create a new hook, try to move the hook link to the episode to the front of the hook. Any link that appears before it will steal views from the article. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I've went ahead and followed your advice and tried to do it to the best of my abilities. Feel free to correct me if I performed any steps incorrectly and I'm thankful for the recommendations. I'm not sure how to cite a podcast and specifically the timestamps specifically, and hope I did it right. And yes, I do agree that it's fascinating opinions can change over time, but you seldom see it happen for the positive. I didn't really notice a big backlash for Healy and rarely ever check Reddit bc well...anyways, I digress too much haha. And yes, I did heed your point on moving the hook link to the front, thank you. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: Great job! I recommend figuring out a way to move the link to the front of the hook, so that the episode is the first blue link. Otherwise, you could do it the opposite, moving it to the end, but eliminating all other links so that the viewers are forced to visit this article to find out more. Basically, although it sounds counterintuitive, you want to get in the habit of limiting the links, not increasing them (for the aforementioned reason, links preceding will steal views, etc.) Try playing around with different variations of ALT4 until you find one that really works. Sometimes you will find that the best inspiration for a hook comes not from thinking about it, but from putting it aside and thinking about other things. I find that I do my best work either during or after a brisk walk or jog, as it increases blood flow to my brain, but I assume that's TMI. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: To better prepare for this DYK, I just watched the episode again. I will complete a full review in just a little bit. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Aside from your hooks, the only complaint I have about the article is this sentence in the lead: "some felt the episode had little purpose in the show's narrative". I'm not sure that should really be there since 1) that criticism seems fairly unbalanced and undue for various reasons, and 2) there are more notable, more balanced criticisms you could use instead, and 3) the idea that the episode "had little purpose" seems frankly unbelievable, since the episode serves the deliberate purpose of a) explaining how Jimmy deals with and eliminates the threat of Jeff blowing his cover by implementing the MAD strategy; and b) this specific episode introduces us to the circumstances leading directly to Jimmy's eventual incarceration. Just wanted to throw that out there since it struck me as odd and out of place, and brought back memories of the original Reddit discussion which was completely out of left field. One wonders if that initial criticism was made out of sequence of the subsequent episodes which shows how it fits into the overall narrative arc. If so, that would explain the problem (in other words, the criticism was written prior to the episodes showing the denouement), and perhaps there is a way to rephrase that to show that reviewers were confused until later episodes tied it all together, I don't know, but if there's a way to do it, it would likely explain the overall problem. When the episode originally came out, people were freaking out on Reddit, and I'm not going to lie, I was also a bit confused as to how it fit into the narrative, but this was cleared up in subsequent episodes giving us that information. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is yes, the criticism that "some felt the episode had little purpose in the show's narrative" is half-true, but there's another half to it, which is that this confusion was quickly cleared up as the arc progressed. Furthermore, David Segal's negative review demonstrates his confusion as it was written before the next episode, and it is sure to go down as one of the worst blunders in entertainment history, perhaps similar to Siskel and Ebert panning Blade Runner. I am deeply curious if Segal has already recanted his review (someone should look into that), since there is now a general consensus that "Nippy" is a cinematic and artistic masterpiece, and frankly, I don't think the lead does enough to fix this kind of unbalance or to explain why people found it hard to understand at the time, but quickly changed their tune as the arc progressed towards its resolution. My opinion is that good art is something that takes time to digest, it's not something you can quickly consume like fast food. I think some critics and audiences are so conditioned to consuming "fast food" entertainment, that when presented with a haute cuisine-like form of media, they don't know what to make of it. This argument is not my own, it was recently presented to me by another person who was trying to explain why some people dislike Oppenheimer and other Nolan films and think Nolan is a terrible filmmaker. There's this idea that if you can't consume a piece of entertainment fully in one sitting, it's "confusing" or out of place, or doesn't work. This was my third time viewing "Nippy", and it just gets better every time I see it. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: Just saw Erik Kain's negative review on Forbes.[1] While I don't agree with him, he is honest enough to add a lengthy update to his review explaining how he received pushback on his review and discussing how controversial the episode was for fans and divided the community. There's also some interesting discussion by fans in the comment section that further expands on this. Looking into this deeper, it turns out that the cast and crew have discussed this here and there. My reading of this from the POV of the writers and directors, is that they made a conscious choice to go in a different direction with this episode, and while this worked for them, it alienated a lot of people in the audience because they had expectations about where the show was supposed to go. So my reading of the controversy isn't that this is a bad episode, but that it violated the expectations of the audience in a way that left them temporarily befuddled and confused. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: I found additional sources independent of the NYP to support your preference for ALT0. I will list them shortly. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The first source is the official Better Call Saul Insider Podcast podcast. McCaleb, Chris; Dixon, Kelley (26 July 2022). "610 Better Call Saul Insider". Better Call Saul Insider Podcast (Podcast). Sony Pictures Television. Event occurs at 48:29. Retrieved 19 February 2024. Michelle MacLaren: (48:29) "Jim had to eat so many Cinnabons. I mean, it was insane and we had all these [tricks] and everything. (48:53) So that, I mean, we literally at one point, he would go up to his mouth and then he would pass it off to somebody who would grab it behind his head with a fork or he'd spit it out, but he did have to eat some."

Second source: Michelle MacLaren: "That last bite is placed there for tension, because as soon as that bite is in his mouth, you’re done, if you’re not done. We build it up through repetition – it should be incredibly nerve racking at that point. It’s fun to do things like that, because you can go closer and closer, you’re making a big deal, but about somebody eating a Cinnabon. I will say hats off to Jim O’Heir, because he had to eat a lot. We had a lot of spit takes and stuff, but still, I mean, wow, that was that was very challenging to to do. He is amazing."[2]

Third source: "And then of course the Cinnabons. First of all, I was so excited about Jim O'Heir [who played Frank]. He's the number one person to play that part. I called Jim when we were in prep and I said, "So, Jim, do you like Cinnabons? You're going to have to eat a lot of Cinnabons and I just wanted to prepare you for that." He laughed and he said, "You got the absolute right person to play this part." He loves Cinnabons! But, I don't know if you can even eat a whole one because they're just so heavy. He was such a trooper with that.We had all these different tricks, but he did have to eat a few Cinnabons."[3]

Sorry, that's all I could find. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Apologies for not looking earlier, but either way, thank you for passing the DYK thus far and also for the plethora of information you have provided. I will definitely be sure to take a look at all the sources you have provided and again cannot thank you enough for doing the research. I've went ahead and just now integrated the sources and information into the article, regarding the lede "little purpose" thing, I'm frankly not sure how to resolve that, I'll probably resolve that later since I'm more prioritized on the DYK, so if you have any edits, feel free to be bold and go ahead and implement the changes. I also tried to improve the plot to hopefully make it more engaging by using more active tenses and establishing some more flow, and thanks for CEing the Prod. Apologies for all the hook alterations, but my original plan was actually to have the Cinnabon thing as the prime hook, with Burnett being my second pick, and having the other stuff as just pure back-up. I took your advice and tried to be as minimalist as possible and put the main target link at the front for ALT5. I'll probably now fully commit to that and in the case that it won't suffice, I'll then focus on revising the others. My hook order is now something like this: ALT5, ALT2, ALT4. Either way, again, I genuinely appreciate the patience and thanks a lot for the advice. And if there's any other prose things you feel needs improvement in the article, of course, feel free to alert me. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: For all the interworking parts to function effectively in ALT5, consider making a few changes. You can get the same results in different ways. For example, you can arrange it so there is only one link which has the same effect as moving the link to the front. This is just an example for discussion, please do not actually use it: "that Michelle MacLaren directed Jim O'Heir to eat numerous Cinnabon rolls for a scene in Better Call Saul?" By using only one link, it gives you a bit more freedom to write the hook. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Gotcha, I went ahead and edited the prose of ALT5. Are you sure I can do that, I was under the impression you should Wikilink all the significant terms for the hook, no? I've went ahead and tried to emulate the structure, feel free to give me further advice. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@

WP:DYKMOS, which says "Every eligible article in the hook should be linked and wrapped in bold markup"? That only refers to the link to the Nippy episode. I'll address the hook in a bit. Viriditas (talk

) 19:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I see, and I do agree that the collaborative and constructive nature of Wikipedia is definitely one of its best elements. Considering that, I believe I will now present ALT5, as it is currency constructed, as my final DYK hook, and hopefully that works. Let me know what needs to be done and again, thank you for all the help you've given me thus far in the DYK. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I like ALT5, but before passing it I will need to check the article and requirements. One thing to consider, will non-fans find it interesting? Will other reviewers find things objectionable about it? These are the questions I try to ask. This is also why I will approve more than one hook in the event that others dislike ALT5. You and I like the hook because we are fans, but we need to consider how it looks to people who aren’t. I think it should work, and I realize that you are working with limited material. So I will likely approve it and another hook in the event that others voice reasonable objections, which will allow you to have another hook ready to go just in case. I will return in a bit to do the final review. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed Earwig issues here.[5] Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: I hate to draw this out any longer, but Tatlock confirms in the official commentary that the buns Bob Odenkirk made for Jim were specially prepared and are not the usual Cinnabon size, but larger and more gooey.[6] As you are likely already aware, Cinnabon corporate sent someone out previously to train Odenkirk how to make them, and for this episode, Odenkirk made the decision to make them larger than normal with extra frosting. Of course, I don't have any info that says Odenkirk actually made them for this episode, as he could have had someone else make them, but we do know it was his idea (according to Tatlock) to make them larger and gooier than normal. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: Recommend not repeating words twice in ALT5. You say "scene" several times. Just change the second instance from "Michelle MacLaren intended for the scene to establish tension through repetition" to "Michelle MacLaren intended to establish tension through repetition" as it is already established that we are referring to the scene ("that actor Jim O'Heir consumed numerous Cinnabon rolls for a scene in Better Call Saul"). Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Again, no worries regarding protracting the overall DYK, I appreciate the meticulousness of the review. I will plan on implementing the Cinnabon Content later, as I have some other more Wiki Projects planned. I'll also go ahead and do another Copyvio scan to try and reduce any other quoted content, and thank you for going ahead and helping ease some of that work for me. With that being said, I've went ahead and edited the DYK hook, and in accordance with the comments, I will be now proceeding w/ ALT5 as it is currently (apologies for the new edit on the final edit), but I hopefully believe that now, everything should be addressed. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)