Talk:Millions don't turn up to 'storm' US airbase for extraterrestrial evidence

Arrests

I'd seen reports authorities made 3 arrests which much be worth covering in the article, which seems to only mention one arrest —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 03:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

One of my sources said 2, but only one was attributable. What is your source? There are tons of articles out there. I'll gladly update. --SVTCobra 03:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And if you are talking about the Dutch boys who showed up early, yes, I left them out. It adds another mess of sources, complicating the review. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Reuters is saying five arrests. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 05:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Added with source. Do you want to review it? Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have a chance to review in a few hours —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 06:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Headline

I'm uncomfortable with it; it's a bit... flippant, perhaps is the word I'm looking for. I don't want to suck all the life out of it, though. So I'm not sure quite what ought to be done; but I would like to rein it in a little. --Pi zero (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I fully realize it's non-standard. Even using past tense is against normal procedure. I am open to ideas. --SVTCobra 03:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Some but not millions storm US airbase's Area 51 after viral Facebook post? —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 06:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Renamed to Hundreds go to 'storm Area 51' in Nevada desert which is more standard with its tense, but just doesn't have the same pizzazz. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 09:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Less pizzazz, but not entirely flat. Should do. More pizzazz-ful alternatives are surprisingly hard to devise. --Pi zero (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

We could easily snip out the "go to" for "Hundreds 'storm Area 51' in Nevada desert." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That seems plausible to me; if somebody else disagrees, we're pre-publish and there'd be no problem moving it back.

A facet not visible in the current headline is the contrast between initial talk and how many people showed. --Pi zero (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I should have spent some time sooner coming up with an alternative as 'millions' is the only reason this became newsworthy. "Millions fail to turn up for storming of 'Area 51' of US airbase" could possibly have worked. --SVTCobra 22:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a thought. --Pi zero (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it worthy of a sighted post-publish rename? Also, if our audience doesn't know what NYC is, they might not know where Nevada is. --SVTCobra 23:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Are we willing to settle, with what we have? That would be simplest. Otherwise we have to struggle over finding the right thing so we can do it in one rename and end up with a headline so good it's worth the rename. --Pi zero (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No sweat. It's my fault for not coming up with ideas almost two days ago when this discussion began. --SVTCobra 00:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Perhaps we should keeping trying to work something out. How about "Millions don't turn up to 'storm' US airbase for extraterrestrial evidence"? --Pi zero (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ir is far too late. Anyone who cared about this already got their news from elsewhere. Those who were tangentially aware also know it was a dud. The only way this would have worked as a traffic generator would have been to be early. Speaking of which, I forgot to work on the UK Supreme Court story. I was going to summarize the arguments made last week. BTW, how is your availability looking this week? I'd like to be really recent if we can. --SVTCobra 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Last week I was extremely busy off-line; this week, less so. Of course, all the time I can conjure I keep wanting to pour into tool development. --Pi zero (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, Acagastya: I've applied a rename. It's waiting to be sighted, as so far I haven't done so myself.

@SVTCobra: Publication sooner rather than later is always desirable, of course. I can but try. I'm unsure whether the constraints that delay my reviews are really dependent on things like off-line appointments in the morning; a day like today comes along with no such off-line appointments and I still have trouble getting to review first thing in the morning, so... maybe the delay is more structural. --Pi zero (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4514881 [Passed]

Revision 4514881 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4514881 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.