Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 1 February 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2010-05-05 Add nominator names to the Misplaced Pages:DYKSTATS tables. Priority 9

Clearing the backlog

I strongly believe we need to increase the rotation of queues to every 5 hours or perhaps every 4 hours to try to work through the backlog. There are currently 6 complete queues lined up ready to go and enough verified hooks to construct at least another 5 queues. At the present rate, that's almost 3 days worth of hooks... and ignores the 150+ unverified hooks and the fact that at least another 75-90 new hooks will get nominated in those three days.

On a related note, we need more folks to do some thoughtful reviewing of the existing hooks. Some of these have been sitting untouched for more than a week since they were nominated. The more well-written, properly verified hooks there are, the easier it is to create a solid queue. Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Things aren't too bad really, since the bot came back we've caught up on about 30 hooks IMO, however if you want to speed it up to five hours for a few days it probably won't do any harm. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I think we should get more picky. A lot of noms just say "that something...di something" without it being obvious whther the acheivement was notable at all. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll be fine just speeding up the bot a bit, it's worked very well before. Disqualifying user hooks on the basis they are not interesting enough is just going to create a lot of Wikidrama that I'd prefer not to deal with. Gatoclass (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...I used to challenge hooks more often for not being interested, but in the interest of fairness I don't do it a lot anymore. In theory, I still try to challenge hooks that are totally mundane and say nothing interesting about the subject (like "so-and-so was a poet from the 18th century"), but in practice I don't often see people nominating hooks that boring anyway. Politizer /_contribs 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the drama. Long gone are the days of Petaholmes standing firm. To be honest I've gone soft too. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, per this discussion and previous practice, I've sped up the timer to 18000 seconds (aka 5 hours) but we should keep a weather eye on the bot to make sure it behaves as expected. - Dravecky (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1/23 Queue 1

Queue 1 does not take into account that the lead hook has two highlighted articles. Someone needs to add Kentucky in the War of 1812 as mine.--King Bedford I 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean for the credits? Politizer /_contribs 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes; the credits need the Kentucky 1812 article added.--King Bedford I 15:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I can't do it (since it's protected), I just wanted to make sure I was understanding what you meant. Politizer /_contribs 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. It's fixed now. - Dravecky (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that it first credited me for Indiana, and then when the credit for Kentucky happened, Indiana's was wiped out. SNAFU, anyone?--King Bedford I 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How odd. I just checked and I did remember the extra space after your username on the second credits hook so I have no answer for what the bot did. - Dravecky (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, there has to be an extra space somewhere in the credits when there's more than one article? Have you guys been having to modify the credits templates by hand when you take them off of T:TDYK? If so, let me know what needs to be done, and I can update {{DYKsug}} so that it will automatically format the credits the way they're supposed to be formatted (although I can't vouch for anything the bot does with them; once they're produced by the template at T:TDYK they're out of my hands). Politizer /_contribs 03:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That really isn't workable because users often get more than one nom/hook into a single update. Best to leave to it be done manually IMO. I am eventually going to ask nixeagle to fix this for us because it's a very kludgy feature of the bot as it is, but I thought I'd let the bot run for a week or two before imposing on him again. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Error

Que 5, hook #3 starts with "that that". Aboutmovies (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>° 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Standards have dropped for what's interesting

This is a trivial error in the National Bridge Inventory. I pointed this out, but apparently that's interesting? Do people really find that interesting? --NE2 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See above for one admin's brief comments on problems with disqualifying hooks based on how interesting or uninteresting we feel they are.

Basically, for some topics (like roads) there's not much interesting to be said, but we still recognize that someone has put in the work to make a new article, properly reference it, etc., so we're willing to give them a few hours on DYK, especially if they've made the extra effort to find the most interesting thing possible (even if you don't think it's interesting) in an otherwise dry article. There have been occasions where an otherwise fine article has been disqualified on account of having nothing interesting to say, but those are very rare, and the hooks that have been disqualified for that have been considerably less interesting than even this one.

Also, I see that you have already argued this point at length on T:TDYK with the reviewers there (as shown in the diff you gave above), so why are you bringing it here...just to stir up trouble? Politizer /_contribs 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing it here to get more attention to the problem. This is not something that even belongs in the article, but trying to get it out is probably a non-starter. --NE2 14:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of interesting hooks is a perennial complaint around here, and has been for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Politizer (talk · contribs) - this seems a bit like forum shopping. Cirt (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, what forum should I have taken it to? The hook is no longer on Template talk:Did you know, so I can't discuss it there. --NE2 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be done anywhere. You, NE2 have continuously fought over my hooks and yet, very few others, with Warren 35, this is the 6th straight. Out of those 6, 2 have made it to the main page. Every time that it does, you make sure, somehow that it gets ruined. Stop coming to DYK, or get off my case, because you are making my time miserable.Mitch32 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I try to look at all highway-related hooks; I found this one by searching for "route". If I have disproportionately objected to your hooks, it's because yours are problematic, not because I follow you. --NE2 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet, other than two which were errors, you just continuously go on - "not interesting", "not interesting", "not interesting". Its ridiculous.Mitch32 16:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Some articles just don't have anything interesting. That's a fact of life. --NE2 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate hook idea - I know this is on the Main Page now, but I thought that something like

DYK ... that the use of salt to melt ice on County Route 35 in Warren County, New York is adversely affecting the health of Lake George?

would be a more interesting hook. Ruhrfisch _><>° 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See County Route 11 (Warren County, New York) - which would match that hook, as there is more info there.Mitch32 16:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Saltwater runoff causing environmental problems is a common problem, hardly unique to any one road, so that wouldn't be any more "interesting" to many people. Infrastructure articles are notoriously difficult to wring for a universally fascinating hook. - Dravecky (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of whether we want a hook for any article, or just interesting hooks. --NE2 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I just got around to looking at Mitchazenia's contributions, and found this. He's playing a game in which getting an article on DYK gives him points. --NE2 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many of them are. See User:Garden/WikiCup. My view is that these "games", just like the (now deleted) Sharkey's Award Center before it, contribute to the number of low quality DYKs and the drive toward multi-hook DYKs. Editors are doing this for points. FAC and GA suffered from the Sharkey's Award Center and can only combat the User:Garden/WikiCup by maintaining some form of quality control. As far as I can tell, DYK has no explicit form of quality control, other than the requirements of recentness, new and expanded article size and referencing. And even those are constantly challenged. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Multi-article hook DYK should be to condense subject matters and clean up the hook problems (since DYK is supposed to represent all areas and subjects proportionally, having a lot of hooks from one page continuously causes problems). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

*The problem is how do you fairly apply an "interesting" standard? Considering the global worldwide audience of the main page, defining what is interesting is highly subjective. If we try to limit the scope to what the few regulars here at DYK find interesting they we are going to pre-install (albeit subconsciously) a fair amount of systematic bias into the main page. We already have a difficult time trying to pull from a broad spectrum of articles as it is. Not only is this a recipe for Wiki drama, as noted earlier, I think the type of subconscious bias that will be introduce will be far more detrimental to the quality of the mainpage than the occasional "boring" hook. Agne/ 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite possible to fairly apply a standard. However, one has to be a little flexible, in that some subjects that have been deemed to be noteworthy by the community are nevertheless very mundane. Roads and highways are one such subject, and I apply a lower standard of inclusion for such topic areas, because one is unlikely to get much of a hook out of them. That doesn't mean however, that we shouldn't look for the best possible hook, nor does it mean we can't disqualify articles about which nothing interesting can be said. In practice though, most of the time a passable hook can be found, even for the most mundane topics. Gatoclass (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do we stop? I abhor lists of opening day starting pitchers for random amateur baseball teams, can we stop those too? » \ / (⁂) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is BF. Are you saying we shouldn't disqualify even the dullest of hooks/articles? In practice we have always done so. However, in the case of a particular genre of article, I think it would be quite unfair to disqualify them outright on the grounds that the topic area itself is intrinsically uninteresting. Part of what DYK is there for, after all, is to demonstrate the range of different topics that people write about, and some of these topics are inevitably going to be of little interest to the general population. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that most, if not all of the articles that pass through here are as boring as watching paint dry. Looking at the current batch, we have the seat layout of an obscure church, an article about an antimicrobial protein, a diesel powered ship and a college football player. All of these probably have very limited appeal. Only once or twice a day are there actually hooks that are truly interesting. We can't bar certain types of articles from being too boring because we will forever be drawing a line between equally uninteresting hooks. » \ / (⁂) 10:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I entirely agree with your assessment, but on the question to hand it sounds like we're more or less on the same page :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree too. The thing is, here, that I am one of the people that finds roads interesting, and yet this database error is just so trivial as to not belong in the article. --NE2 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest an alt hook if you can think of one. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not every article has an interesting hook, but anything that actually belongs in the article is better than this. --NE2 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has their pet interest. As a matter of fact, the Y-Bridge (Galena, Missouri) is pretty neat. :P » \ / (⁂) 12:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the Pulaski Skyway, though the Historic Columbia River Highway is also cool. --NE2 13:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally drawn to Texas State Highway Loop 12 with its access to so much of Dallas, its astounding views of Texas Stadium, and interconnectedness with so many other major highways but must confess a hometown pride in Interstate 565. - Dravecky (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK late

The next update is 40+ minutes late. I emailed Nixeagle. I have an article in the next queue (#3), and I was expecting credit. Royalbroil 16:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That did it - it's working now. Royalbroil 16:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what did it, I don't think it was actually late in the bot's eyes. When I have time in a bit I will investigate the bot's settings and make sure they were not changed. (There are a few pages on here that tell the bot when the next update time is etc.) However the last update was run automatically. You should have my email in reply Royalbroil. —— nixeagle 17:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys might do well to when setting User:DYKadminBot/time to subtract a few seconds, even up to 60 seconds to account for differences in time between wikipedia and the server its on. So if you want 5 hours, set for 18000 seconds - 60 seconds... so set it to 17940. —— nixeagle 17:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, thanks for emailing me royalbroil, I would not be here now if you did not. —— nixeagle 17:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We've actually been getting a 5 hour 50 minute rotation for some odd reason. I've left Nixeagle a message on his talk page. - Dravecky (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the 5 hr 50 minute issue in our short offline email discussion. Royalbroil 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

16 article hook for April 9 - anniversary of end of the ACW

It has been suggested that a potential 16 article hook related to the American Civil War introduced on January 21 be saved for April 9, the anniversary of the ending of the Civil War. It has also been suggested for 2 queues for that day since there are 16 related articles involved to the ending of the American Civil War. There is a suggested Alt 3 hook that several have liked that seems to work well, with the related picture. The articles then would receive much airtime for this important event in American history - especially if a DYK for that particular date. --Doug Coldwell 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it is an all day event, why not break it up into four different queues so that it marks the whole day? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the page. It's my view that the various buildings are not independently notable, that it should all be merged into the article on the National Historic Park.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to dismiss all of the building's outright, but I don't see enough to say that each is independently notable. I would like more detail to define notability. Otherwise, there are some historic areas (St. Mary's City, the first Catholic settlement in the US) that I would love to dump about 20 pages or so about various buildings but have only as much support for notability (probably more, to be honest because of it being the first capital of Maryland). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The National Park Service says each of these buildings have significance by their association with the site of Lee's surrender to Grant, a major event in American history. It does show in the reference for Virginia for the Appomattox Court House National Park for each of these buildings that the National Register Status was documented on 06/26/1989. The NPS has broken each of these buildings up with separate descriptions in the reference giving Historical Significance as well as a Physical Description for each. Alt 3 has just a little over 200 characters for all 16 articles, a reasonable amount especially for that many articles all at once - an amount not higher than many of the 8, 9 and 11 DKYs in the Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Hall of Fame.--Doug Coldwell 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I spent three years performing archaeological research for various military bases to reach standards under the National Register, so I know a thing or two about the process. Give me some time and I will look through what I can find. There is a difference between a site and individual houses of notability. Normally, it deals with who exactly was there. Like I said before, there are dozens of houses at the St. Mary's site that would not be individually notable, but some would be. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this site the mission of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park is

Therefore, the purpose of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park is to commemorate the effective termination of the Civil War brought about by the surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, under General Robert E. Lee to the Union Army under Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia on April 9, 1865 and for the further purpose of honoring those who engaged in this tremendous conflict.

The primary significance of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park can be summarized as:

-the site of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E. Lee to Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the Union forces, April 9-12, 1865, effectively marking the end of the Civil War.

-the site of the Battle of Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, which led directly to the surrender.

The National Park Service has a separate number for each of these structures under their List of Classified Structures for Virginia and Appomattox Court House National Historical Park and list these as individual specific notable structures of significance. It has further individual information on each of these structures as being significant in their own right with many having separate pages for description and historical significance, each a Misplaced Pages article of pretty good size now.

• McLean House
• Old Appomattox Courthouse
• Clover Hill Tavern

Each of the cemeteries and ruins are listed also in the List of Classified Structures with their own specific number and information.

It appears the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, controlled by the National Park Service, has listed each of the structures and buildings (i.e. Appomattox Court House, McLean House, Clover Hill Tavern, etc) within the Park. It shows for each structure and building under Historical Significance that the National Register Status has been entered and Documented. The National Register Date: 06/26/1989.

According to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 all historic areas, including National Historical Parks controlled by the National Park System, are automatically listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This includes the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park and all of its structures and buildings in its 77 List of Classified Structures, including but not limited to Clover Hill Tavern and Woodson Law Office and Bocock-Isbell House and Sweeney Prizery and the Park's cemeteries and ruins (each one listed individually in the NRHP under the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park) - all of which are in the 16 article hook DYK.

I believe that ALT 3 is a reasonable 16 article hook DYK that would get a lot of airtime on April 9, especially with its associated picture.

• Alt 3 ... that the Appomattox Park (pictured) has a Court-house, Tavern, Jail, Store and Prizery, the Bocock-Isbell, McLean, Peers and Wright houses, the Sweeney and Sweeney-Conner cabins, the Jones and Woodson law offices, ruins and cemeteries?

--Doug Coldwell 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of waiting until April, February 12 would make more sense. It is the tyrant's 200th Birthday. I'm already going to have four DYK hooks just for the occasion.--King Bedford I 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd still like to see more work done to some of them before they are featured on the main page. For example, in Clover Hill Tavern, taking something from the original source like "steps to 2nd porch at the E end of the 1st floor. Gable end elevations have centered projecting chimneys and no openings. A wood shingle gable roof with a box cornice covers the building." and changing it to "There are steps to second porch at the east end of the 1st floor. The gable end elevations have centered projecting chimneys with no openings. A wood shingle gable roof with a box cornice covers the two story guest house structure." doesn't seem main page-worthy to me. I understand that the original text is public domain, so I don't think there's a copyright issue. Just a personal preference, perhaps. I also don't see that it's an interesting hook. Nothing is said about why it is special. As a reader, I wouldn't feel compelled to click on the articles and read about four houses, two cabins, and two law offices. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Closer look

I performed a closer look at the National Register. We have a few options so I will lay out the information then say how I see it: "Appomattox Court House" is listed as not being a historical landmark (per this). There is a well house that is part of the same listing under the whole park (per this). There is also fencing listed under the same entry (per this).

Then we have buildings like the McLean House which have the same sort of entry (per this). It is also designated as not being a landmark. Grant surrendered there, so it is a moment of significance. Its wellhouse is listed with it, but lacks significance (per this). There are other buildings, including a slave house, privy, fence and kitchen that are listed separatly (example per this).

The Clover Hill Tavern had parole listings about the Confederates, but this is only a semi-notable feature, and the part that had it decayed long ago (per this). A guest house is listed with it, along with a slave house, fence and privy (per this). Patteson Hix Cemetaries is listed as existing at the time, and having bodies of county founders, but no real notability ( [ per this). The county jail has nothing significant to connect it to the event except for proximitely (per this).

I can go through the rest, but you can see that the level of notability (its part of the site) would list bathrooms, fences, slave quarters, and 77 individual articles if that is used as notability. Since the National Register does not designate it as a historical landmark and only as a park (thus, needing to fall under National Register like all governmental properties), the buildings cannot be deemed to be individually notable or there will be pages on clearly non-notable things (bathrooms, fences, etc). These should be deemed notable based on references only. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It would of course be open to anyone formally to propose a merger (hardly, I think, an AfD) for some of these sixteen new articles, presumably to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, and I imagine Doug would contest anything of the kind, looking for arguments at WP:N. Here at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know, we surely can't prejudge the outcome of such discussions. I suppose the same arguments could have been put forward for the family of cricket articles by YellowMonkey which got through DYK just over a week ago, setting the present record of eleven new articles linked in a single hook. Are Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and so forth notable in terms of WP:N? I'm not sure, but I formulated that successful hook, giving all of them the benefit of the doubt, at least for the purposes of DYK. I can't help wondering, is shelving this nomination until April a way to play for time? I should have thought Doug could ask for his present hook to be accepted or rejected now, and as I understand it he's asking for it to be accepted. People can always stand on encyclopaedic principles, but no other encyclopaedia (so far as I know) has anything remotely like our DYK. This is a fun page, not part of our mainspace, and the DYK column on the Main Page is merely ephemeral. Xn4 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally with all the comments Xn4 has made. I would like to get the 16 article hook DYK accepted as soon as possible. --Doug Coldwell 10:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I guess we can ask about a consensus on it. Is the 16 part hook the only one you want? Or are there other proposals that you are willing to offer? Any other arguments to be made (such as saying that a certain building appears on more than 10 pages in more than three sources, etc)? Or should anyone nominate some of the ones that appear non-notable to be deleted and wait until that outcome? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My only objection is the amount of sources. The species based areas are scientifically notable. The players were notable by sheer bulk of information and they were notable players before (thus, the articles are more based on WP:SIZE constraints than needing to have separate notability). If the individual locations can be determined to be notable for some reason besides simple proximity, then that would be necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - it leaves a strange taste in my mouth to read an article that is mostly about its "significance" and having the same thing stated over and over. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to make my mind up on this particular submission, but I do think that with the increasing popularity of multis, we need to add a clause to the rules which stresses that users who want to submit long multis should consider canvassing opinion regarding their eligibility on this page before going ahead with creating the articles, in order to avoid possible disappointment. Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we expand that to possibly any "potientially controversial" submission or most of the controversial types? Add to the above, for example, those dealing with a 5x rewrite that had a lot of copyright info before or something similar. Also, I would like it if we made it clear that by submitting it here, it gives leniency on the timing so that people do not feel as if they are missing the 5 day window. Then, on determining it, should we go off consensus, simple up down, or find out if an admin is willing to add it (and then only have one person needed to support)? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for "leniency on the timing" because just suggesting a hook is not the same as writing the articles for it. The whole idea of adding a recommendation to find consensus here first is so that people do not waste their time writing articles only to have them rejected later. And yes, acceptance of multis will be based on consensus like anything else. Note that I'm not suggesting that you must submit a multi for prior consideration, only that you might like to do it in order to avoid future disappointment.

I'm not sure about the "potentially controversial" clause. I guess it would be one way to approach it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Having had a moment to think about it, I don't think a "potentially controversial" clause would be useful because there is nothing particularly controversial about the copyvio exception, it's a longstanding convention to not count copyvios. So that can just be an addendum to the current clause about x5 expansion. In which case, we might as well give the other section a specific name, like "Submission of multi-hooks" or something. Gatoclass (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant the "potentially" part to acknowledge that sometimes drama randomly appears when items related to copyviolations are made apparent. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have left a note at the NRHP wikiproject asking for further opinions on this submission. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why must all 15 (or 16 or however many there) new articles appear in the hook? Does anybody seriously think that a casual reader will religiously click on each of the links just because they are bolded? If anybody is interested they will undoubtedly read all the articles by reaching them from the links in the main Appomattox Park article. Anybody who isn't interested in the main article isn't going to feel cheated because the Jones house wasn't mentioned in the hook. Unless DYK is only about records and counting nowadays I can't see the point. Highlight a couple of the new articles if it makes an interesting hook by all means, but don't insist on a tedious list just because it bumps somebody up a chart somewhere. DYK shouldn't be a competition, and if it is...just count them anyway (add 15 on to your total on whichever unregulated chart and you are done). Yomangani 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its a size/amount of page issue as a notability issue of the individual buildings. I looked at the page originally thinking that I would quickly pass it as ready as I did for Doug's last large set. However, I live in DC and did work in order to help federal properties meet the National Register requirements for three years, so I have proximity and that background which led me to doubt if some of the buildings were truly notable enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It turns out, after some further research, that in fact all the structures and building are in fact automatically listed in the NRHP by the fact that they are within a National Historical Park.--Doug Coldwell 15:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your idea is unworkable Yomanangi, because if you are only going to give one DYK award per hook, users will just revert to submitting multiple hooks instead in order to get their DYKs, and that is exactly what we don't want. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with submitting a hook with 16 new articles, but that is not the issue here, the issue is whether these buildings are separately notable and whether 16 separate articles is the best way to present the information to end users. Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the attitude is now "I must have an award for every one of my qualifying articles regardless" that's a pity, as it means that DYK has become purely a competition among editors. Since the hook is repurposed from something to pique the reader's interest to a record of an editor's recent contributions, and we already have Special:Contributions and Special:NewPages for that, perhaps we could just transclude those pages into the area now taken by DYK. It would save no end of hassle. Yomangani 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets put aside talks of awards for a moment. Doug put together at least 10 pages that I think would interest people. Besides those who would come to the pages out of interest, there are probably at least a dozen who would consider looking close enough to fix problems, add information, cats, etc. These two aspects are important. DYK is used by specialists to get their topic out, but also to hunt down people for gnome work or may know of things to add. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But putting 16 articles out at the same time will dilute that effort. Unless the gnomes are particularly interested or dedicated they aren't going to go through all 16 (or 10 or whatever), and if they are they will probably go through all the articles regardless of whether every single one is linked. It's not about awards per se, but about what purpose DYK serves. A hook written solely to include any qualifying articles doesn't serve either the reader or the encyclopedia particularly well. Yomangani 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern (directly above this subsection) remains unaddressed. Some of the articles seem to contain reseach from a number of sources; others, like the example I have given, are simply pasted from a (probably public domain) government site with numerals changed to words and articles like "the" added. I don't believe that articles like that should be featured on the main page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that lately New County Jail has been expanded by 50% and Old Appomattox Court House, Clover Hill Tavern, Jones Law Office, Woodson Law Office, and Bocock-Isbell House have been increased in size considerably in the last few days. The others are fairly large articles already. Yes, there is room for expansion, especially in the History areas which others will have expert knowledge on. There is of course room for other improvements (i.e. grammer, spelling, etc) on all the articles. I believe all 16 articles are justified as an important part of American history, if not the most important part (reuniting of the Nation).--Doug Coldwell 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Under that theory, all buildings with a 16 block radius of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Paris, etc, should have their own pages. Also, the outhouses, the slave quarters, the kitchens, etc, around the meeting should also be included. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Alt 3 ... that the Appomattox Park (pictured) has a Court-house, Tavern, Jail, Store and Prizery, the Bocock-Isbell, McLean, Peers and Wright houses, the Sweeney and Sweeney-Conner cabins, the Jones and Woodson law offices, ruins and cemeteries?

In reply to Yomangani's remark on why having all 16 articles in the hook:

One thing I have noticed in checking out the 16 articles at various locations (i.e. libraries) is that the 15 articles on the "structures" in the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park happen in their browsers to open ("show") automatically exposing the linked names of the articles within the hook. If the reader is interested enough (i.e. Civil War buff) to click on 2 or 3 articles within the 16 article hook, then they will notice that they are all in the template box already opened ("show") and all they have to do is follow through and click any in the box. This is quite likely to happen IF they are interested in Civil War history. Now IF only the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park is linked in a hook, THEN all they are going to get is 4 templates at the bottom - none of which they will know what to do with (click on "show"). Now lets assume a few do realize by clicking on "show" it opens the template box showing the linked articles - THEN they will probably click on all the templates "show", exposing hundreds of linked articles, NONE of which they will click any further because it is so over whelming. So, bottom-line is that IF they click on a few (or even a couple, likely) in the 16 article hook, they will realize that the remainder articles are at the bottom of the article they are presently viewing - increasing the odds they will view all of them. They don't necessarly have to go back to the hook each time and click on each article in the 16 article hook. So IF they have interest in clicking on a couple of articles in the hook, then they probably will click on the remainder because they are already available ("show") in the template box at the bottom of the article they are viewing. I believe that ALT 3 that Xn4 (talk) has submitted will receive good airtime, especially from Civil War enthusiasts and those that like making nitty gritty corrections to articles - SINCE they will be easy to find at the bottom of the article they are viewing already.--Doug Coldwell 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can follow it seems that you agree with my point that you don't need 16 bolded links in the hook. You are expecting that if the readers are interested and they click two or three of the links in the hook they will discover the template and go from there. As I said, write an interesting hook with a few of the articles linked. Hooks should be about hooking the reader, not a method of pointing out how many articles somebody produced on a single day. If we forget about serving the reader then standardising the hook as "... that User X wrote these articles recently:" will be more efficient. (Doug, I'm not aiming at you but at the culture that has developed of DYK as an editors' competition; your hook just provides a convenient...err...hook.) Yomangani 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No Yomangani I am not agreeing with you. I am saying that with 15 possibilities it increases the odds they will hit two or three, some (any) two or three, finding the template and going from there. The hook will attract readers, especially if it were the first in the queue with its picture. The readers (probably Civil War enthusiasts or those interested in Parks) will be served.--Doug Coldwell 12:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I believe Yomangani's point is that this is not a "hook" in any meaningful sense. This laundry list of bold blue links will not "hook" the attention of readers. "Did you know that there are lots of very exciting historic buildings and ruins in some park?" --- One pound (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone look at article traffic statistics to see if being in a laundry list meaningfully increases an article's traffic stats, versus being in a hook that is interesting or intriguing? If the traffic stats are the same, than why waste time writing interesting and articulate hooks? Why not always have laundry lists if they put in as much or more clicks through to the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind I am showing where the reader finds the other articles in the template box, not off the hook itself necessarily. Obviously these type of template boxes are useful since they are in many articles. In this case the 15 "structures" are divided up into 4 categories making them easy to understand: Public buildings, Businesses, Private homes, Other. The one in black is the article they are at, where the others are the linked articles in the hook. Once a person has hit two or three of the articles in the hook (possibly even one), it is likely they will realize the rest are in the template box SINCE the article they are now reading is now in black where before it was a linked blue article. The template box with these Categories are not a "laundry list", but a list of linked articles related to the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park subdivided into 4 different types, no one string more than 6 articles - 4 houses and 2 cabins. The template box opens ("show") automatically in any one of the 15 "structures" other than Appomattox Court House National Historical Park.--Doug Coldwell 12:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• The following articles have no independent notability and should be put up for deletion for a consensus to be determined: Charles Sweeney Cabin (just a description, nothing important), Old Appomattox Court House (even states that it played no role), Clover Hill Tavern (100% generic information), New County Jail (100% generic), Plunkett-Meeks Store (100% generic), Sweeney Prizery (100% generic), Bocock-Isbell House (100% generic), Peers House (100% generic), Mariah Wright House (100% generic and contains portions of a letter completely unconnected to the house), Appomattox Court House National Historical Park ruins (generic buildings, just no longer existing), Appomattox Court House National Historical Park cemeteries (no one famous buried there, or enough to make it notable), Woodson Law Office (non-independently notable law office), Jones Law Office (non-independently notable law office), Sweeney-Conner Cabin (100% generic). This is not to suggest that each listed here should be deleted. It is only to suggest that the pages listed here do not contain any independent assertions of notability, merely reproduce the same information contained in the other pages except for some description, and contain very few sources to really show that it was important in any way except for being near something important. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Notability

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

An article does not need to show independent notability (shows it played a distinctive role in the Surrender) to be a stand-alone article, just that it has reliable secondary sources - which all the articles have. In Old Appomattox Court House there are several references that state it did not play a role in the Surrender and several more could be found easily. To have notability (Misplaced Pages) does not mean that the "structure" has to be in the National Register of Historic Places, but all these structures in the articles happen to be. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity." The Old Appomattox Court House is worthy of notice. Must be since Timothy H. O'Sullivan took a picture of it in 1865 and it is on the cover of many Civil War books like A Stillness at Appomattox.--Doug Coldwell 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, the only information seems to be generic information that each page has. Aren't there any excerpts that primarily discuss the building except in either the general terms common to all of the pages or the ones describing what the building looks like? Otherwise, all we have are a bunch of pages that basically say "this was a building". Please find more information and expand on it, please. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the 16 article hook DYK should be approved or disapproved as soon as possible, since it mets all the criteria. The articles are all qualifying articles for new articles. The hook is interesting and will attract readers interested in the Civil War and in Parks as well as the normal gnomes interested in making corrections to new articles. The length of the Alt 3 16 article hook is no longer than articles half that size or even a quarter that size. This hook saves approximately 3000 characters that would be produced by 15 additional single hook DYKs. It would especially attract readers if the first one in the queue with its associated picture. Civil War enthusiasts will recognize the "court house" immediately and probably follow through to see what the articles are about.--Doug Coldwell 13:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reason I believe the 16 article hook DKY will attract readers is because of the pictures in the articles. Lets say one clicks on Old Appomattox Court House, which shows the 1865 version of the original "court house" and as it is today. If one were to then click on Clover Hill Tavern it shows the Tavern and pictures showing the printing of parole passes and associated buildings. If one were to then randomly click on the Plunkett-Meeks Store it shows the Store exterior and interior and the associated buildings. All the articles have associated pictures. If on any of the articles they clicked on the Misplaced Pages Commons link they get over 50 associated pictures related to the Park.--Doug Coldwell 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is great that Doug Coldwell has taken the time and trouble to create all of these article, but I think most of them should be merged together somewhere. I can't see the notability - each is a rather derivative example of its type, of which there must be hundreds or thousands of examples, and their only claim to fame is that they are near Appomattox Court House.

The people at AfD will have a better idea of how notable they are individually. I'll start with Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office. -- One pound (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office. -- One pound (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This couldn't have waited 24 hours? The multi-hook has been in the queue for display sometime tomorrow. - Dravecky (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been promoted since the issues have still not been resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to know who promoted it. I'm having a hard time trying to figure that out, but it seems rather improper and also causes problems with the AfD nomination, which takes priority over DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky. The AfD happened after it was promoted, so it's not really appropriate to say that D. messed up the AfD when he promoted it...Gatoclass is probably right, though, that it shouldn't have been promoted at the time, because of the outstanding issues. I presume the appropriate action would be for an admin to take it back out of the queue for now and BOLDly replace it with something else from T:TDYK or next or whatever. Politizer /_contribs 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky knew that this was going on. You are not supposed to put them on the list while there are concerns. The promotion does not occur until it is listed on the mainpage. This is a very bad act, and Dravecky should have known better, especially when he weighed in at the AfD. This can be seen as undermining the neutrality of AfD by promoting something that is challenged against consensus and then giving it a status to make it seem more important. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so Dravecky made a mistake by IAR-promoting a hook that wasn't ready; it's over now, though, the hook has been on the main page and has gone back off the main page, and is no longer DYK's concern. Discussion of the problem articles can be continued at the AfD; they're not really relevant here anymore, and discussion of Dravecky's character isn't really relevant anywhere. In any case, I don't see much point in rehashing this at WT:DYK any longer. Politizer /_contribs 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky does not get out of this because he was able to get it to the mainpage before anyone saw what was happening. This is a major mistake and Dravecky needs to be kept from promoting such pages in the future. You can try to sweep it under the rug, but that's not how things work on Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone other than the hook nominator is allowed to promote a hook to Next at DYK; it's in the rules (WP:DYK#Updating the DYK next update page). Dravecky made one mistake, that doesn't mean he should be banned forever. I've made mistakes promoting hooks, too; everyone has made mistakes on WP, even you. We recognize that Dravecky made a mistake, now we can move on; the hook has come and gone, there's nothing we can do about it anymore anyway.

I'm not interested in "sweeping it under the rug"; I'm just trying to end a conversation that is not productive and no longer relevant. There's nothing more I have to say, though, so feel free to have the last word. Politizer /_contribs 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to reread WP:Consensus. It doesn't matter if "anyone" can promote, which is not true because only admin can promote. What matters is that Dravecky purposely overrode consensus that he knew existed, did not withdraw it as is appropriate once it is blatant that he knew that it was a problem, then participates at the deletion review which demonstrates a pro-article POV that shows that he was not neutral in promoting it to begin with. This is a violation of many of the administrative ethical principles and a lack of respect to consensus and to the process. Wehwalt expressed a major initial concern. After looking in, I expressed the same concern. Two reviewers were trying to find a way to overcome the concern. Then others participated and some expressed their own concerns. If everyone acted like Dravecky, there would be no point as to having anyone do anything but have Dravecky decide all of the nominations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: by "only admin can promote," Ottava Rima is referring to promoting hooks from Next into the Queue (and from the Queue into T:DYK), which is edit-protected. Anyone can promote hooks from T:TDYK to Next, as it says in the rules. The diff I gave above was the diff of Dravecky's promoting the hook from T:TDYK into Next. Politizer /_contribs 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How to add a DYK entry

I feel silly for asking this question, especially given that I've added a few hundred DYK nominations, including using the new templates which I feel are starting to become pretty usable. When I want to add a nomination for the 25th, I go to that section and edit the section that includes the first nomination only, adding my new nomination above the old one. I don't want to edit the whole article or even the whole day for fear of edit conflicts and other potential screwups. Am I doing this correctly and might there be a better way to use the templates to just add an entry for a specified day? Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding you... but the best way to do it is not to edit the section for the first nom, but the section for the date. For example, if the first nom under January 25 is Foo, then don't edit the Foo section, but the Jan 25 section... then add the template above Foo and below the January 25 section header. Unfortunately, there are sometimes edit conflicts, but as far as I can tell there's no way to avoid them (other than possibly drafting your nom in Notepad or something beforehand). When they come up, I just paste the stuff back in as fast as I can...it's annoying but I don't think there's any way around it :S.

By the way, I'm currently finishing up the development of a new template that will be less messy (the way you use it to add entries will be the same; it just produces a cleaner output); since you're such a prolific contributor, any suggestions you have (on things that you find confusing or annoying now, things that can be improved, things that you'd like to see, etc.) wouuld be much welcome! Politizer /_contribs 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Using your example, I do edit the Foo section, not the January 25 section, as the Foo section is smaller and far less likely to result in edit conflicts. When I do a preview, I don't have to look at a whole day's nominations. I'm pretty happy with the current set up, now that I'm past the learning curve, but I would love to see a way to add a new entry to a specified date that gave me a blank page, rather than having to edit a portion of the whole list to add one entry. My appreciation for all you and the other templatizers have done to take this into the modern era. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're right, editing that way is fine too, as long as you put your new entry either below the entire Foo entry (including comments/discussion), or above the entire entry (including the ====Foo==== header). I think I was imagining something different in your earlier message.

As per your other suggestion, I agree that would be nice, and in the past I played with the idea of trying to make some kind of add nomination in this section link or whatnot, in addition to the regular section edit links...but so far I haven't figured out a way to get that to work yet. The problem is that section editing works by ID number—when you click the "edit" button for section January 25, for example, it doesn't just edit a section named "January 25," but rather it edits the nth section of the page...for example, if January 25 is the 6th section on the page, the url you'll see in the navigation bar on your browser will be something like "...&action=edit&section=6". (This is also the reason that sometimes, when you're vetting noms ,you might go to edit one section and what opens up is the section above or below it...if someone added or removed a section higher in the page before you clicked "edit," it changes the numbering.) Basically that means, since the numbering of sections is always changing (today "January 25" might be the 20th section, and tomorrow it might be the 40th), I don't know of any way to set up a static link that will always allow you to put your nomination in the date you intend to...the only option would be to have all new nominations be made at the top of the page, but that would get rid of the obvious benefits of having nominations grouped by date. If anyone else reading this knows of a way to set up a static link that will always edit a particular section (ie, a link to "add a new nomination under January 25" no matter where January 25 is on the page) I would definitely be open to suggestions. Politizer /_contribs 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles saved from copyvio deletion

A4 of Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Additional rules states that fivefold expansion is calculated from the previous version of the article, no matter how bad it is. But what about copyvios? I recently found Joan Snyder tagged as a coypvio. The article was created on December 5, 2008, and was a copyvio until {{db-copyvio}} was recently added to it on January 25, 2009. On the same day, I rewrote the article, using only two sentences from the previous version. I nominated the article for DYK, but it was rejected because "there is no consensus, and no time, for analyzing and debating the quality of each previous article version before determining how many of its bytes to count. Nor has there been a consensus for making an exception to A4 for copyvios." I believe that it should qualify for DYK because it would have been deleted as G12 if I didn't save and rewrite it. I could have allowed it to be deleted and then recreated it, but I didn't do so. I haven't found any previous discussions about A4 and copyright violations, so I would like to propose that copyright violations are an exception to A4. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was a copyvio, then shouldn't the offending text be removed? It is not about subjective quality; it either is or it isn't a copyright violation. Certainly should be discounted, much like how if an article was vandalised so that it was 50x its real length. » \ / (⁂) 00:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be discounted. It's not "new", and should be regarded the same way as a quote (except that quotes are allowed, of course). Chamal 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the copyvio revisions should be discounted in determining the criteria. The author could just wait for it to be deleted and start again to get a DYK, which would just be finding away around it but I have let copyvio replacements on the main page. Fine with me. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As with any set of rules, there are always points which come up which don't seem to be covered in the rules... like the case of the cricket test match in Faisalabad in 2005 in which an explosion stopped play. (England were 92 for two in their first innings, in reply to Pakistan's 462, when the explosion of a gas cylinder stopped play in the session after the tea-break; luckily, the ball wasn't in play and it wasn't the decisive last ball of a limited overs match). In this instance, there's clearly no going back on the decision taken on Joan Snyder, but for the future I think it would be fair for Editor A to ask a friend (Editor B) to delete the copyvio text before Editor A begins to rewrite the article. The expansion could then be counted from the previous version of the article by Editor B, the slimmed down version. Xn4 (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why make these red-tape rules? Why make an editor who is doing a commendable, but ofter overlooked job of saving speedies on worthy subjects jump through needless hoops? What you and YellowMonkey propose change nothing in substance, only in appearance. Why bother? Misplaced Pages is not bureaucracy, instruction creep, or red-tape factory. I think we agree that in spirit copyvio replacement is a totally new article and should be recognized as such. Renata (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Cunard, I think it should be ok to make exceptions in situations like this (if the entire content of the article was copy-pasted from somewhere else—as opposed to bits and pieces of the article being stolen from somewhere else—there's a clear case that the article should not have existed, at least in that form, and so if you rewrite it from scratch it is basically a new article, even if the subject itself is not new to Misplaced Pages), but is not necessary to write those exceptions into the rules. These kinds of things would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis; in addition to the issue of how much of the article was copyvio (in this case, it looks like the whole thing was) another issue is how much of the "rewriting" was new—ie did the writer blank the whole page and then start from scratch, or did the writer use the copyvio version as a scaffolding for what to write, and clean up things to make the writing "different" from the original? For reasons such as this (not to mention instruction creep), I don't think it would be wise to add an all-encompassing rule exempting all copyvio cleanup from normal expansion rules. Sometimes this sort of work might consitute a "new" enough article for DYK to recognize, and sometimes it might just be an unrewarded good deed.

The reason there is that part of A4 stating that expansion is counted from the previously existing article no matter what shape it is, is so that people don't bog down DYK by saying "ok I only expanded it 3x, but the text that was there was so terrible that my expansion has really improved it more than fivefold, so please go assess it" or "well it only looks like a 3x expansion, but actually I deleted all the old content and rewrote everything, so I've written way more than what the expansion looks like, please go count it for yourself"...that kind of assessment is just something we simply don't have time for, and character count is a convenient and impartial way to assess article expansion. Anyway, that's why I'm saying it is probably ok to IAR on copyvio rescues when the original copyvio was especially blatant (as in the case above), but in other cases it might be difficult to ascertain the extent of the copyvio and the extent of the improvement...cases like that need to be handled differently, so there's not much point making a sweeping change to A4 that would exempt both of them from the rules. Politizer /_contribs 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate this answer as it emphasizes that judgment and discretion must be used. I do not see how this can be avoided. There cannot be a "rule" for every eventuality. Common sense has to enter into editorial judgment. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I must admit that I was a bit peeved when my new Romanesque art - the old one had turned out to be 100% copyvio, plus the odd word - was rejected last July. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios are not counted for the purpose of determining length of the x5 expansion. There are also precedents for not counting text that is clearly irrelevant to the topic of the article, but again, if someone wants to propose an expansion on such grounds, they should ask for an opinion here first in order to avoid disappointment. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but do you oppose something like "copyvios are not counted" in A4? If you do, I guess I'll have to save the link to this discussion the next time I need to explain what the truly unwritten rule is. Especially since I mistakenly thought the consensus was the opposite. Art LaPella (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't oppose it, you are welcome to add it to the ruleset if you want to. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait to see if there are more comments first. Art LaPella (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good move, I think. Go ahead. We should encourage people to explain about exceptional cases like these when nominating, so that we can avoid wrongly rejecting suitable articles. Chamal 07:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Another bot prob?

Nothing major, but check out the DYK template on Talk:K_pattern_flamethrower. Is that right (the %28)? —Ed 17 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists