Talk:am-progressive

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the German language has developed a new progressive aspect in everyday speech?

• Source: Every source on the page, but 1 and 2 are the most useful sources for easy verification.

• • Reviewed: [[]]

Created by JacobTheRox (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC).

• I love linguistics but I doubt the average reader even knows what a "progressive" (edit: or "aspect") is, making this an overly obscure hook. (t · c) buIdhe 07:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • There isn't really a way I can simplify it within the hook so I'm just taking my chances that it's considered fine. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Most technical articles are not well suited to DYK. Furthermore, even from a linguistics perspective this mundane example of ongoing language evolution is not really all that noteworthy. (t · c) buIdhe 18:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - see above

QPQ: None required.

Overall: (t · c) buIdhe 18:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Buidhe and JacobTheRox: I agree that the hook as currently written is too specialist or technical. However, there does seem to be something that could be used instead. What about:

ALT1 ... that there is dispute on how to capitalize verb components in a recent form of German progressive aspect?

While it is still technical (especially with the term "progressive aspect", which to be honest I'd never even heard of before, even as a fluent speaker of English!), it should at least be slightly easier to understand, and there is an aspect about controversy, which might at least be eye-catching. If there is a better way to word the subject in the hook, that would be good too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that how to capitalise a colloquial German progressive form is the subject of much dispute?

Is that any better? JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 18:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Given that it's a much shorter and simpler hook, yes it is better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: Have your concerns been resolved, and is this ready to be approved? If not, what else is needed? Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I still don't think that this is of interest to people with no knowledge of the study of linguistics. (t · c) buIdhe 19:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• @JacobTheRox: Are you able to propose some alternative hooks? The more that are proposed, the more likely it is that at least one of them will be of interest to others. Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• ALT3 ... that despite being "somewhat viewed as standard speech already", the German am-progressive is still considered ungrammatical in schools?
• ALT4 ... that the spread of a German colloquial aspect has been described as 'biphasic'?
• ALT5 ... that a colloquial German progressive form has been described as an entirely new verb form?

Those are all the others I can think of right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobTheRox (talk • contribs) 12:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: Are any of the new ALTs approved? Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• New reviewer needed to review new ALT hooks. (It's been over eleven days without a ping response from the original reviewer, buidhe.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Article is long enough, uses reliable sources, is stable, has no obvious copyright violations (from what I was able to compare with my non-existent Germany so accepting in good faith), hook is cited and interesting (ALT2 is the best of all). No image to review, its written in a neutral tone, QBQ not needed, no image to review. Flagging a few concerns below before promoting:

• Tags - I've added several tags that need to be addressed. Mostly because of standalone pargraphs without a ref or because the information was uncited. Could you please take a look?
• Sources: Source #2 needs a page and Source #15 (Dudengrammatik 8. Auflage 2009, Rz. 594 S. 427) isn't linking to a ref at the bottom (not sure if you missed adding the ref Cited sources).

This should be it, article is ripe for promotion. Ping me when this is done! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 03:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm marking this for closure given JacobTheRox's lack of response and the nomination passing timeout. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to be able to fix the issues with the article any time soon so that's fair enough imo. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)