User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2021/August

Hello, Theleekycauldron. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hook that was selected at Template:Did you know nominations/Long Bow Trilogy is not one I particularly like at all, and I don't even really think it's interesting. I don't know why I wasn't consulted on this before it was chosen but I think I made it clear my alt was the preferred one. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Paragon Deku! I'm happy to switch the hook, but I can't promote an alt unless it's specifically stated in the article (without repeating the exact same words) and cited right at the end of the sentence—I wasn't quite sure where to find that, so I went with another hook. If you can clear this up, I'm happy to swap. Thanks so much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a rewording of the initial hook to fix the (what I consider to be pedantic) issue, the citation from the Asian studies journal is right there. It's mentioned in the lede and the reception section. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paragon Deku: Ah, I gotcha. Well, that should be up and fixed! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, thank you for your hard work at DYK building prep sets. It's always difficult to get the sets balanced between bios and non-bios, and it took me a while to learn all the ins and outs.

A couple of things to keep in mind as you do so. A key one appears on the prep page above every set of hooks, Note: Because a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are biographies or U.S.-related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on biographies or U.S. topics in any given set, but never more than half from either category. Further information is available at

Second, it's important to keep like hooks separate: there shouldn't be two bios in a row or two hooks from the same country in a row. Also, with the exception of the U.S., which should typically supply three or four hooks unless we're running low on approved U.S. hooks, it's best to limit yourself to two hooks per set from a single country, and if it isn't a big country, then probably only one hook. A variety of subjects is best.

I've always found it a bit like a puzzle, putting together the pieces in a way that works while following the various guidelines (bio/non-bio, country, subject variety, etc.), and finding both a lead hook with a nice image and a quirky hook for the final slot. There are even more nuanced considerations if you can work them, such as not having all short hooks or all long hooks in a set (it unbalances the main page).

I hope you continue to enjoy building prep sets. I'm happy to answer any questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: thanks for the heads-up! I see you took a few hooks out of Prep 2, is that what you're referring to? I thought it was four of any country, that's my mistake. Any other prep sets i should be keeping an eye on? it seems like the other ones were approved theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm looking through the sets, quite a few (i believe around seven) of the U.S. hooks were approved or nominated by me. We're running low on them outside of those, so if those could be promoted that would be helpful. The few left are mostly with pictures. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, the issue with Prep 2 is not only that there were four UK hooks, but they were four consecutive hooks. When building DYK sets, no two consecutive hooks should be from the same country, or the same type of hook (two bios, two buildings, two music, etc.). So having Thomas Earle followed by Pixie Davies was a double whammy: they were both bios, and they were both UK. It's why I moved both Thomas Earle and Chestnut Centre out, and left Pixie and Piers Shonks separated from each other.

Ah, that's—quite the brain fart on my part. I don't think I was paying attention to that, and I should have been.

Another thing I'm not sure you're aware of is that when you promote a special occasion hook, you should add an invisible comment in the prep to indicate that it's a special occasion hook, so it doesn't get moved by someone else trying to balance a prep set or replace a hook that was just sent back for more work. If you'll look at Queue 4, you can see what I did with the Gemma Collis-McCann hook that you promoted.

I wasn't aware of this—I also promoted

Leschenault Lady

, that could've been a problem? I'll add comments from now on.

Finally, one of the things I learned to do when closing a nomination that I'm promoting to prep is to always use the "Show preview" button first to make sure it looks right before I publish changes. A frequent problem is that people will add comments below the final braces in the template (which are on the line with the comment that reads Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.), so when you go to close a nomination, they appear outside the colored box that closing creates. When that happens, you need to move everything below that final line to just above it before completing the closure. Unfortunately, two of your closures didn't go as they should have about 17 hours ago. On

WT:DYK

. I've fixed and closed both of these nominations, so they're all set.

I should've caught those beforehand—i tried to take a shortcut on those, and it didn't pan out, i'm sorry about that. I'll check each one with a "show preview" first.

I hadn't realized that you had either nominated or reviewed so many of the U.S. hooks, making them unavailable to you when building sets. Perhaps, if you can't promote enough U.S. hooks yourself, you could leave an empty slot or two in your sets in the hopes that someone else will come along and fill them with the U.S. ones you can't promote yourself. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll leave blank slots.

@BlueMoonset: I'm sorry about the mix-ups—I'm still a bit new to this. I really appreciate the constructive criticism, I'll keep it in mind as I build more prep sets. Thanks so much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, we're all learning all the time. Mix-ups happen, and it's another way to learn.

I wrote

a whole essay about that—i could do with some internalizing it, bahaha. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

One more thing to take into consideration is that some prep builders prefer building complete sets only. When you fill up all of the lead hooks in the otherwise empty preps, they can't work the way they like to do it, and some of them just wait until they can do all eight slots of a prep rather than fill up an already-started set. It is fun picking lead hooks because of the pictures, and people like doing it, so it's good to spread the fun around. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I thought that might have been a problem, I'm sorry about that. I just wanted to get rid of some of the more backlogged hooks—I wish the approved hooks with and without images went into separate pages. It'd be easier to navigate that way, but I'm happy to stay in one or two prep sets at a time either way :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed when you promoted Hedgehog Flavour Crisps (which I reviewed) you said, "How could you possibly have no preference? ALT1 is the funniest hook I've ever seen on DYK." (emphasis in original) To answer your question (which was probably rhetorical), I probably had no preference because I'm practically humourless (I only get the really obvious cheesy jokes and puns). Just wanted to note that. Have a great rest of your weekend! Pamzeis (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Ahaha, I appreciate the heads up! It was totally jokey :) Have a great weekend! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
101		Two Cathedrals (talk)	Add sources
753		Magical objects in Harry Potter (talk)	Add sources
205		Sam Seaborn (talk)	Add sources
14		Roxor Games (talk)	Add sources
91		Angry Birds Space (talk)	Add sources
118,255		Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (talk )	Add sources
8		Robert Hilkemann (talk)	Cleanup
40,717		Kabul (talk)	Cleanup
30		Say No to This (talk)	Cleanup
3,130		talk )	Expand
2,055		ByteDance (talk)	Expand
63,556		Andrew Cuomo (talk)	Expand
250		Leo McGarry (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
167		Toby Ziegler (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,857		Presidential system (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
37		Sentiocentrism (talk)	Merge
50,997		Al-Qaeda (talk)	Merge
16		Scottish poorhouse (talk)	Merge
153		Greyfriars Kirkyard (talk)	Wikify
21		Valley Lodge (band) (talk)	Wikify
265		Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (talk)	Wikify
38		Kards (talk)	Orphan
15		Sebastián Izquierdo (talk)	Orphan
117		Mikayla Nogueira (talk)	Orphan
27		Mike Hilgers (talk)	Stub
533		2021 Turkish floods (talk)	Stub
7		Jukka Linkola (talk)	Stub
8		Arthur Wahl (talk)	Stub
5		Redlands Adventist Academy (talk)	Stub
11		Lynne Walz (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Theleekycauldron. I nominated the John Solomon Cartwright article, and I'm just curious how you choose amongst the four hooks? I've never done this DYK thing before and I'm interested in the process. When I nominated the four hooks, I just put them in the order they occurred in the article and didn't really have a preference, but I thought # 4 was the least likely to be chosen. Shows how much I know! :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz! I appreciate the question! Well, my opinion isn't the be-all end-all—you can see that the reviewer actually had a preference for the second hook. For my personal thought process, I didn't want to use ALT1, because the hook centers more around the court martial than Cartwright himself, who I thought was quite interesting—so I wanted him to have a hook that was really his. The other three are great.

As to why I picked #4 in particular, I thought the interpersonal conflict aspect was really interesting, and the one that left the most room for investigation. If I come across the first hook (which we call ALT0) on DYK, i'm going to think "hmm, that's interesting" and not give it a second thought. But if i come across hooks 3 or 4 (ALT2 and ALT3), I'm going to think "wait, why is that?" For the last hook in particular, I'd be thinking "what's so weird about this Francis Hincks guy that Cartwright would pass up an opportunity like that? I've got to learn more about this Cartwright".

It's hard to put into words exactly why I chose ALT3 over ALT2—I'm the promoter, and my gut instinct was that I liked the last one the best. Sometimes, hooks will get swapped around in the

prep areas, if there are problems or if the nominator thinks one is more interesting. But usually, it's the choice of the promoter. Thanks so much for the question! I really like the article, kudos to you on getting it to good article status. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting! Thanks. I came across Cartwright quite by accident, on a long-term wiki-project I'm working on, and put it aside to work up Cartwright. The GA reviewer, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, was very helpful, and definitely made it better with their questions and comments. Big "what if" for me is "what if Cartwright hadn't got TB?" His politics were definitely out of step with the political evolution of the Canadas, but he was really capable. What would he have done as politics evolved? would he have been a leader in Confederation? A mentor for Macdonald? He certainly had the talents for a long political career; or business; or the law/judiciary. When I put the four hooks up, I thought to myself: "If it's a Canadian reviewer, it will be #1 (because Macdonald), or #3 (because French-English); if it's a US reviewer, good chance #2 (because cross-border war). #4 is for politico-types." Hadn't thought of it so much as personality conflict.  :) Thanks very much! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - i noticed the above discussion on Hedgehog crisps and I agreed with you - I burst out laughing when I read it the other night!Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I am definitely one of the politicos, but that angle was what worked best for me (I'm fresh off my Hamilton phase so personal-political rivalries are my jam). Also, thank god on the hedgehog crisps! No one else as of yet has shared my enthusiasm :) nice to know you do–it's just so so good theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looked really good on the main page today - thanks for all your help! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

of course! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing out promoted noms

Thanks for putting together so many DYK sets! While double-checking DYKUpdateBot's recent edits, I noticed the bot credited Michael M. Thomas twice within a day. After a bit more digging, it looks like the associated nomination was accidentally left open when the hook was first promoted to prep 7, causing it to be promoted to prep 6 a second time a couple days later. Mistakes happen, so no worries, let's make sure to close out promoted noms in the future :) Shubinator (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shubinator: Oh my, I'm sorry about that! That shouldn't happen anymore—what it probably was is that I was alternating between tabs, and probably accidentally closed out the nom page (and it wouldn't have thrown an error since i didn't change anything, only copy/pasted). I'm split screening the tabs now, it's much more efficient and it should mitigate that mistake. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I approved it, but forgot to ping you. Left some side comments at the nom. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Thanks so much! I just pulled an all-nighter and I am waaaay too sleep deprived to stand up straight, much less edit an article, but I'm going to take a look at your suggestions in a couple of hours or so. I really appreciate the review! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rest and recharge. Stay safe.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, TLC. I just noticed this was promoted already...you thought the photo wasn't clear at the size? I feel like when we have am image of a Black woman, which is pretty unusual, we should consider using it, maybe cropping if that helps with the clarity at the size. Most of our bio images are of white men. —valereee (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: it didn't have much to do with clarity. There was some discussion on the talk page about the lack of U.S. hooks—initially, I was told to promote hooks without images to preserve the half-U.S. balance, so i did that for a few sets, but then I was told to only use one U.S. hook, which is why the number of U.S. hooks in the sets drastically decreases as you go down. Hayden is a great choice for an image, and by all means, if you can get the white men off the image section for a bit, please do. The reason I promoted the buildings was my tired monkey brain at work—when I was promoting image hooks without their image, I kept snubbing the building hooks, so I resolved that when I had room, I'd promote those out from under first, because they were easy to remember and mostly from the same user, and I didn't want to make them feel bad. In the process, I forgot about the other hooks I promoted. That screw-up's on me. Feel free to spread the U.S. hooks out and put Hayden and McAndrew in place of the buildings—just make sure there aren't two buildings in a set, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TLC, it's no big deal! :) Not all image hooks can get the image slot! Building preps is sort of an art form -- there are general guidelines (like we should use 3-4 US hooks in each set) but often people don't know the reasons behind those guidelines. In the case of 3-4 US hooks per set, it's purely because we have so many US hooks. Also don't worry about snubbing buildings, flags, coats of armor, statues, and other things that are easy to get images of. We have editors who will do a long project about multiple such things, and they'll nom every one with an image. Look for images that are actually important to the hook and/or are unusual/interesting in some way. And please don't get discouraged because people are commenting on the work. We all appreciate it! It's just, like I said, building a prep is an art form. It probably takes longer to learn than anything on WP except the Featured Article process. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

advice noted, thanks! And thank you for the encouragement, I needed that at the moment :) I am getting better at the prep building, and I'm getting more comfortable with using my own discretion (the advice helps quite a bit with that), but you're right, it's an art form and it takes practice. I'm definitely learning a lot here, and enjoying myself. again, i really do appreciate the message—it's hard not to take a bit too seriously and try to fix everything, and you helped me take a step back. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julie Schmit-Albin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Julie Schmit-Albin was awarded the title of Admiral in the Great Navy of the State of Nebraska for her work as a pro-life activist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Schmit-Albin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Julie Schmit-Albin), 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 12:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

August songs

Thank for good DYK reviewing in August! I liked yesterday's Main page, with 4 bolded names I brought there, all in memory: the TFA, nominated for a missed user, the pictured DYK (Alfred Biolek), and two under Recent deaths, Siegfried Matthus and Teresa Żylis-Gara. August harvest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are just amazing in scheduling, DYK? Just one of them left me unhappy, Template:Did you know nominations/Klassische Philharmonie Bonn. How is this: you re-open it, unstrike ALT2, and approve that? Nutshell: this is Klassische Philharmonie, not the precursor, and it's quite common for an ensemble to focus on music written in the area, while several concert series all over a country is a unique ting to say (see La Folia Barockorchester]), + about the current, not the precursor (+ mentioning the founder who died but his death was reported too late to go under Recent deaths). I pleaded with the reviewer, as you probably saw ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! It looks like the reviewer approved ALT2, and it wasn't struck, so I'm happy to switch it out, if there aren't any objection. Some things get bogged down in months of minor wording changes, and if both are approved, it doesn't bother me. Narutolovehinata, if you did mean to strike the hook for some reason, let me know, we'll work it out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, my mistake, I meant ALT1. - It's not minor, - it's whether we focus on the current with the conductor, or the precursor without him, about a unique fact or something rather frequent. - Good side effect: at least I looked again at the Dresden orchestra, which lacked references, o dear ... I added one for the moment. RL today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Well, I can re-open the nomination, and you could request a second opinion on that ALT with {{subst:DYK?again}}. I probably couldn't act as the reviewer after that, and I definitely couldn't both approve and repromote the hook. I'll follow whatever you'd like to do, but I'd submit that this particular nomination has already dragged on for over two months, and that going through this is going to take at least another week for someone to want to dig into it. DYK is, as i'm sure you already know, very slow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reopen the nom then. Recent deaths is - as you probably know - one of my key things this years. He died in June, - a few weeks more or less don't matter ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so—I'll reopen the nom for you, then :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]