Talk:Bob ("Weird Al" Yankovic song)

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that "Weird Al" Yankovic wrote the song "Bob" entirely in palindromes, and then decided to sing it in the style of Bob Dylan? Source: Lily E. Hirsch, Weird Al: Seriously (2022), p. 30.
  • Reviewed:

Created by BD2412 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC).

• Note: The next upcoming palindromic date is March 20, 2023 (3/20/2023). I would not object to holding this for that date, though it is a long way off. Cheers! BD2412 T 07:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Nice article on a remarkable song. Thanks for your contribution! Article is new enough (created 10/19) and long enough even without the long block quotes. Earwig doesn't detect any problems, but I do have a question about whether the three lengthy block quotes are needed in their entirety. In particular, we have 728 characters of block quotes taken from the Hirsch book and 420 characters from the Elliott/Bull book. I ask that the nominator have another look and modify any portions that can be paraphrased or put into their own words. (Not a mandate but a suggestion) The hook is short enough, cited, and interesting. QPQ still needed. Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Cbl62:: The first block quote I think is important, because it is Yankovic describing his process in his own words. The other two I have now incorporated into the article test. Do I have a QPQ issue? I thought I still had some space there. BD2412 T 02:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you for abbreviating the quotes, and you are correct that you are currently exempt from QPQ. Accordingly, this is good to go. Cbl62 (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• @BD2412 and Cbl62: Per WP:SOHA ("The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus"), I'm totally on board with holding this until 3202023. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No objection by me. Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: After discussion at DYK talk, a consensus was reached to post this on 22 November 2022 (i.e., 22/11/22). BD2412 T 16:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Due to my slip-up, the article missed the 22/11/22 DYK set – let's hold this for 21/12/22 instead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • That works - thanks! BD2412 T 22:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)