Talk:Star Trek: Day of Blood

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by NeoGaze talk 07:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Source: Lovett, Jaime (November 19, 2022). "Star Trek: Day of Blood Crossover Announced". Comic Book. Retrieved 24 April 2025.
Moved to mainspace by Cambalachero (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 128 past nominations.

Cambalachero (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Cambalachero All sources that I can find verify the hook fact. The reading order section needs to be referenced. I am not approving ALT1 as not interesting. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the article right now and nothing stands out as a hook that works for non-Trekkies. If no agreement on a new hook can be made, or no new hook can be proposed, we may have to fail this one unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so also. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Is the hook really all that interesting if you aren't a Trekkie? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 Is Template:Did you know nominations/The Interstellar Song Contest any different? It is in prep 6. SL93 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a different case. For one, that hook makes sense even if someone isn't a fan of Star Trek. A character going that long between appearances is at least going to raise eyebrows among an average reader. ALT0 seems to be appealing more to Trekkies: I'm not sure if a non-Trekkie would be as interested in knowing about crossovers or things like that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crossovers are a type of comic book publication, usually used by Marvel Comics and DC Comics. You can expect them to "raise an eyebrow" Spock-style when they notice that someone else is stealing their thunder. And, as said, first work of its kind. Cambalachero (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93:, remember to finish the review. As I pointed some time ago, the "Reading order" has been referenced. Please mark it as ready if ready, or point if there is something else that still needs to be done. Cambalachero (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ready. I was waiting for the hook thing to be straightened out, which it didn't. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I still don't think it's all that interesting to anyone who isn't a fan of Star Trek. It's very interesting to Star Trek fans, definitely, but if you're not a fan of the series, then having a crossover event within that series does not seem like much of a big deal. If it was a crossover between, say, Star Wars or Star Trek, it would be a different story. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of Naturo's constant attempts to derail this nomination with non-actionable complaining. I would like someone else to provide a 4° opinion on this, or to endorse SL93's review. Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, if a hook is at best marginally interesting, it is actionable by proposing a different hook (for what it's worth, I agree with SL93 that ALT1 is not interesting, so it doesn't count). If there really is nothing else in the article, I could maybe live with ALT0. I personally just don't think that the hook has much appeal outside of non-Star Trek fans, which isn't exactly the kind of broad audience that DYK is looking for in hooks. It would be like having a hook about having a Pokémon crossover between two different generations: if you're into Pokémon, you'll find it interesting, but less so if you aren't into Pokémon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the request for a new reviewer, pinging uninvolved editors Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith regarding the interestingness of ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator: pinging editors only counts as canvassing if they were pinged to lead a discussion towards a desired outcome. In this particular case, I pinged the three editors as they are active on WT:DYK and they are knowledgeable about hook interest. I do not know about their opinions at all regarding ALT0, and I do not know if they will approve or disapprove it. I pinged them for their expertise, and not because I think they have a specific viewpoint. Also, my message was neutrally worded rather than being an explicit request to reject or approve. Of course, these editors are free to not respond, and a different editor can make the final decision here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find ALT0 marginally interesting; our article describes Star Trek as "one of the most recognizable and highest-grossing media franchises of all time" and its article has averaged ~3500 views per day. However, given the above, I recommend posting at WT:DYK.--Launchballer 14:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a request for a second opinion at WT:DYK. If my earlier pings are considered canvassing then I apologize, as it was not my intention. I do suggest that Cambalachero assume good faith, as any impression of canvassing was entirely unintentional per my explanation above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. A user acting in good faith would have stepped aside and stayed silent when someone says that his opinions are not productive and asks for another user to take part in the discussion specifically because of it. A user acting in good faith would not ping specific editors of his own choosing who did not take part in the discussion or the writing of the article to replace him at the discussion (circumstances force me now to suspect that Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith may be friends of yours), specially when the neutral procedure (the third opinion icon) was already implemented and awaiting for results. A user acting in good faith would not remove a {{Canvass warning}} that was placed in reference to his own actions. I will politely ask you to get lost, and let me discuss with someone else other than you or your friends. Cambalachero (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think there's any conspiracy or cabal at work. Narutolovehinata5 tends to be a nudge, but that kind of attitude is needed to move things along. I don't see anything wrong except for the use of "first", which we are trying to avoid. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I will not be commenting on this nomination further, but I am disappointed at the lack of good faith shown in the above comment. As I said in my explanation, I had pinged those editors specifically because I did not know what they would think about the hook and knew, from their scrutiny of hooks on DYK, that they would be objective and unbiased (being objective means they could approve the hook and disagree with my opinion). Characterizing them as my "friends", when I explained my intentions, is not assuming good faith. I also apologized for my actions and made a neutral message at WT:DYK not targeted at any specific editor. I am fine with not participating here further, I am just very disappointed at the attitude shown to me above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is now two months old. While I could approve ALT0, prep slots are currently under high demand and I'd be very surprised if it was actually promoted, so I'm timing this out. You may try again at GA.--Launchballer 05:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]