Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:03, 27 March 2010

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

DYK queue status There are currently 7 filled queues – all good, for now! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 8 hours ago( verify reset purge )

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

Problem with hook in prep area 1.

Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant has a hook that is not supported by the sources. It is partially supported by one source and not mentioned by others, but even Suetonius doesn't say that Claudius had to run round the lake, just that he did. Yomangani 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (and "around" is wrong too. The lake was huge).

Thanks. I was partly mislead by the discussion at T:TDYK when promoting that hook. Returned to T:TDYK for polishing. Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooks for 21 March

I am new to reserving hooks for a specific date and confused. Two hooks were reserved for 21 March, birthday of Bach: Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191 and Gächinger Kantorei. Now I find the first one in queue 5, the second in prep area 1. To my understanding that means that the second one will not appear 21 March at all. But that is the one actually mentioning the date. Therefore: most desirable both hooks 21 March as reserved or -- if not possible (but then what is the reservation for?) - switch the two that at least the one with the date appears on the date. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (now those 2 hooks are in Q4 and Q5). Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that across the world, 21 March covers much more than 24 hours due to the different time zones. It may be 20 or 22 March where you are, but 21 March somewhere else. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

I think the bot crashed while performing the last DYK update from Queue1 (6 hours ago), I finished giving the credits and tagging the pages, but I can't clear queue 1 or reset the timer so it's still there. Yazan (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. I'll keep an eye on the next 2 updates. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The DYK bot is still down. Could an admin please monitor the next update (18:00, 21 March). Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot's back up. It crashed because of the ampersand in "Ladd & Co.". I've fixed the bug. Shubinator (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Annette Dasch

At present in prep area 2: To my understanding ALT1 should be taken, s. discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

NewDYKnom guide

I just created Template:NewDYKnomination/guide as a step-by-step instruction for how to fill out the nomination template, explaining what things to leave blank, what belongs in each field, yada yada yada. It doesn't have any information that wasn't already in the template documentation, but seeing all that information at once is maybe intimidating for someone who's never used the template before...this guide should, hopefully, allow a new nominator to take things one at a time and not have to know any technical stuff to understand how to use the template. If someone has already nominated a lot (as probably everyone reading this page has) you don't need to look at this, but for a newbie hopefully it will help. (I'm not sure if it's necessary, as I haven't seen a whole lot of template errors lately, but I suppose it can't hurt. Also, the irony is not lost on me that a template designed to streamline the DYK process has come to require several pages worth of documentation and instructions...oh well!)

Here's what it looks like, for those who are curious:

Type in your article name into the box below, and click on the blue button to create your nomination.

This will open an edit box with the following template:

{{subst:NewDYKnomination
 | article       = {{subst:str right|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|25}} 
 |    article2   = 
 | status        = new / expanded / mainspace / redirect / GA
 | hook          = ... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and  the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>
 | ALT1          = ... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and  the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>
 | author        = 
 |    author2    = 
 | image         = 
 |    caption    = 
 | comment       = 
 | reviewed      = 
}}

Add the names of the articles you are nominating. You can skip this step if you are only nominating one article, and its name is the same as the one you typed into the input box above.

Add the name of the first article (no wiki formatting) to the parameter called |article=. For example:

 | article = French Revolution

If you are nominating more than one article, add the others to |article2=, |article3=, etc. Example:

 | article2 = Maximilien Robespierre
 | article3 = Guillotine
 | article4 = Cake

Add the hook to the parameter called |hook=, following the hook guidelines at WP:DYK#The hook. Remember to begin the hook with "... that", to end it with a question mark, and to link the article title within the hook and make it bold. If you will be using an image with the hook, don't forget to put ''(pictured)'' in it. Example:

 | hook = ... that a lot of people died during the ''']''' ''(pictured)''?

Add the names of the editors who contributed to the article being nominated for DYK. You can skip this step if you are the main contributor, and there are no other contributors that need to be credited.

In the parameter called |author= add the name of the article's primary author (whoever did the work that's being nominated for DYK—either the person who originally created the article, or the one who expanded it recently). Type out the username in plain text with no formatting; do not use ~~~~. Example:

 | author = Jimbo Wales

Just like the article names, you can add more than one author if several people collaborated, using |author2=, |author3=, etc.

If you are not nominating an image to go with your hook, skip this section.

If you are nominating an image, put its filename in |image=. Do note use File:, Image:, or any attributes like thumb and 100px, just use the bare filename, like this:

 | image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg

After that, add an appropriate caption in the |caption= parameter. This supplies both the tooltip (the text that appears when a reader leaves his mouse over the image for a moment) and the alt-text (the text that is used by screen readers or is shown to readers whose browser cannot display the image). It should be a physical description of the contents of the image, not a comment about the image. Please review WP:ALT to see the guidelines for how alt-text should be written.

Overall, the code for the image nomination should look something like this:

 | image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg
 | caption = A painting depicting the storming of the Bastille, 1789

If you have any additional comments or explanation to add (such as "the source of the hook fact can be found on page 12"), add them in the |comment= field. If not, leave that field blank.

 | comment = Article created in my userspace on May 12, moved to mainspace on June 3.

If applicable, list the article that you reviewed, in accordance with the review requirement. Please provide the article name, or note that you still have to conduct a review.

 | reviewed = I still have to review another nomination and will post this here once it's done.

If you have only one hook to suggest for your nomination, skip this step. But if you want to suggest more than one hook, you can put addition hooks in the fields |ALT1=, |ALT2=, etc.

 | ALT1 = ... that millions of high school students learn about the ''']''' ''(pictured)'' every year?

Now the template in the edit window should be nicely filled up. Mine looks something like this:

{{subst:NewDYKnomination
 | article         = French Revolution
 |    article2     = 
 | status          = expanded
 | hook            = ... that a lot of people died during the ''']''' ''(pictured)''?
 | ALT1            = ... that millions of high school students learn about the ''']''' ''(pictured)'' every year?
 | author          = Jimbo Wales
 |    author2      = 
 | image           = Prise de la Bastille.jpg
 |    caption      = A painting depicting the storming of the Bastille, 1789
 | comment         = Please save this nomination for a couple days so it can be on the main page for April Fools' Day!
 | reviewed        = Everlost (novel)
}}

(Your nomination does not necessarily need to have so many fields filled in. I just purposely filled in a lot to illustrate all of them.)

When you are ready, save the page. It should look something like this:

French Revolution

• Comment or view
• Article history

• ... that a lot of people died during the French Revolution (pictured)?

• ALT1:... that millions of high school students learn about the French Revolution (pictured) every year?
• Reviewed: Everlost (novel)
• Comment: Please save this nomination for a couple days so it can be on the main page for April Fools Day!

5x expanded by Jimbo Wales (talk). Nominated by Mr. Stradivarius (talk) at 05:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC).

• view
• talk
• edit

As always, comments, suggestions, and tweaks are welcome. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! Why not expand it with DYK criteria? Such as hook length, cited hook, expansion, or new article length. NativeForeigner /_Contribs/ 02:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Rjanag. Simple (as simple can be) and to the point. Calmer Waters 02:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@NativeForeigner: I considered that, but I also thought it would be nice to keep the instructions limited to filling out the template itself, for simplicity's sake, and to assume that users have already checked the rules before trying to nominate. (Of course, that is probably not an accurate assumption to make.) It would be easy, though, to add some links in each section of the instructions (for example, under articles, just a brief sentence like "make sure your article satisfies the DYK criteria", and likewise for the other sections). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Although that assumption probably isn't 'true' it's certainly fair to make. NativeForeigner /_Contribs/ 02:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Maybe we could transclude it onto T:TDYK? Shubinator (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

Sorry to keep doing this, but ... hook 1 of Queue 3 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1ee 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Added. Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

I expect everybody is now aware of the fact that we (that is to say, Misplaced Pages) have been doing alt text the wrong way :) Misplaced Pages:Alternative text for images is no longer a Misplaced Pages guideline, at least until the matter is resolved. It has also been temporarily removed from both FA and FL criteria. According to the discussion so far on Misplaced Pages talk:Alternative text for images, the idea seems to be that alt text should be short and concise. Quote from the expert's comment there: "Alternative text is an alternative to the image. It is NOT a description of an image."

Perhaps the updaters are doing this already, but I suggest we mention only what the image is (without describing it) on the DYK template until this is cleared up. See the alt text on WP:POTD for example. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 12:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Or if you take a loot at the POTD of 22 March (File:Brighton Beach, Vic Pano, 10.01.2009.jpg), it's simply "Brighton, Victoria". The alt text for File:Pope, 13 march 2007-cropped.jpg which is currently on ITN is "Pope Benedict XVI". ≈ Chamal  ¤ 13:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You can also write "alt=refer to caption," where the caption is a good enough alternative. SlimVirgin 13:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

In the fourth hook in queue 3, 'magnitude' is currently linked to Richter scale - it should be linked to Moment magnitude scale, as in the article. I'd be grateful if someone could fix that. Mikenorton (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Relinked. Materialscientist (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Purple

Regarding the hook in Queue 4 that is set to hit the Main Page in the morning -- I am not an expert in the law on vicarious liability for disparagement, common law right of publicity, implied endorsement, or California's Civil Code 3344 (statutory equivalent of right of publicity), but the article itself notes that Cruise is presently seeking legal advice for use of his name and likeness to promote a psychotropic drug. Given the potential legal dispute, is this something that has been fully vetted to ensure that we are comfortable featuring it on the Main Page? I am not advocating a particular outcome, but want to make sure that this has been thought through. Cbl62 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The more I reflect on this, the more I think it would be imprudent to feature this hook on the Main Page. The article notes that Cruise is angered by the association with the drug, says "his lawyers are on this like white on rice" and that "Tom and his lawyers do not have a sense of humor". I think the article is balanced and the hook is funny. But I just don't think it's worth exposing Misplaced Pages to potential legal risk. The article itself is balanced, but the hook (which is all that many readers will see) does not point out that Cruise is not associated with or endorsing the product. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages is not CNN and doesn't have a staff of lawyers to deal with such "risky business." I'd be inclined not to feature this on the Main Page. Other thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The hook is neutral enough. I don't see an immediate problem with the neutrality or legal aspects of the article (Cruise can sue WP over this?), but I'm ignorant in this matter. Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we pink Mike Godwin something about this and hold off on Queue 4 for a while? Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The hook (which is all that many viewers will see) does not state the Cruise is not associated with the product or that he objects to his being associated with a cannabis product. I am a California lawyer who has handled a couple right of publicity cases. I'm not a specialist in the area, but the hook has my lawyer antennae tingling. I'd be inclined to pull the hook, but AT A MINIMUM I think it should be modified to say it features an "unauthorized" photo of Cruise.... or some other disclaimer to ensure that someone who reads only the hook on the Main Page cannot be confused into thinking that Cruise endorses this product. Is there a Misplaced Pages lawyer who can review this before it's featured? I think it's a good article and a clever hook, but in my judgment Misplaced Pages ought not to be poking a stick at a celebrity who the article describes as "lawsuit happy". Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall return the hook in question (now or a bit later, i.e. not featuring this hook unless the issue is resolved here). Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How about turning the hook round: "... that the actor Tom Cruise most definitely does not endorse a potent strain of cannabis called Tom Cruise Purple?" Bencherlite 01:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bencherlite's suggestion would resolve my concern. I doubt the original hook would give rise to a valid claim, but even a dubious claim (particularly in California) can result in a lot of legal expense. Whilst the original hook is a true factual statement, there may be a risk that the hook, as drafted and in isolation, could create confusion over Cruise's association with the product. Bencherlite's alt hook certainly avoids any risk of confusion. Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think Bencherlite's alt is a more intriguing hook than the original. Very nice. Unless Cirt objects, I suggest swapping Bencherlite's alt into queue 4. Cbl62 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Either hook is fine. Feel free to swap. Kewlness. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But please just use it in some capacity at T:DYK cuz I improved it good. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, hook swapped to version suggested by Bencherlite (talk · contribs), done by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs). Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

...what Cirt said :) NW (Talk) 02:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone rephrase this?

• ... that the dum dum bullet invented by Neville Bertie-Clay was used by the British Army against African and Asian opponents but was considered "too cruel" for use against Europeans?
  to avoid repetition of "used against" (it is in Q3). My copyediting brain part is virtually dormant during composing preps. Materialscientist (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this: ... that the dum dum bullet invented by Neville Bertie-Clay was used by the British Army against African and Asian opponents but not Europeans as it was considered "too cruel"? --Bruce1ee 09:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

how about ... that the dum dum bullet invented by Neville Bertie-Clay was used by the British Army against African and Asian but not European opponents as it was considered "too cruel"? (a few commas could be added, but I'm not sure they are required) Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

or ... ... that the dum dum bullet, invented by Neville Bertie-Clay and used by the British Army against African and Asians, was considered "too cruel" for European opponents? --JohnBlackburne_deeds 10:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally I dislike repetition but in this case I don't find the original hook problematic, as one use is split and it hardly notices. On the other hand, there are problems with all the suggested alts (the last one for example being ambiguous). So unless someone comes up with something else, I would just stick with the original. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fools DYK rules question

A question has arisen at Misplaced Pages talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Rules Question, regarding one of the DYK rules for April fools. any input would be great!--Found5dollar (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Grammar mistake in Queue 4

Oops, just spotted a grammar mistake in queue 4 (and I was the person who drafted the DYK nomination). For Edward Richardson, it should say "...was the first person to build..." rather than "...was the first person to built...". Sorry for that. Schwede66 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 tweak

Queue 6, hook 5: The Master of Game needs to be italicized. Thanks. --Bruce1ee 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Donner Party hook in queue

Isn't it a shame that such a good article as this is given such a horribly phrased hook: "... that the three primary factors to survival in the Donner Party were age, sex, and the size of each person's family group?" "Three primary factors to survival"??? This would shame even a sociologist. It's live in an hour or so; can someone please rewrite this in English? Ericoides (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 item 8

The It's A Crime, Mr. Collins hook currently reads:

... that the 1956 radio program It's A Crime, Mr. Collins was "a flagrant rip-off of The Adventures of the Abbotts in which only the names had been changed"?

It should really read "...was deemed to be a flagrant rip-off...", as the reference in the article is to a single person's opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that a proper thing to do?

I know that administrators, who were involved with editors are not allowed to block the editors. I strongly believe that the administrators, who were heavily involved in the articles deletion requests should not be allowed neither to comment nor to vote on DYK nomination of that article. It dictates by common sense.It is simply a bad tone to do otherwise. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please link to the DYK nomination that you're referring to? rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is about this edit. I have promoted that article, but did/do not object its removal - the article does have its problems (including undue accent on Kennedy's views) and I would go on and not make a drama of it. Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The nomination was removed with the reason "AFD closed as "no consensus" " . It is extremely unfair and wrong. The most vocal opposer was User:Gatoclass. Please see some language the user used in the deletion request badly sourced, POV rant, when asked how he could call Robert Kennedy writings "rant" I was explained that it is my presentation that made it rant (he later deleted word "rant" after I complained at his talk page). Then he said "Well if he wrote copiously on the topic, you ought to be able to create a more nuanced article than a grab-bag of comments that make him sound like a cheerleader for Zionism". Later in DYK nomination he said to me: "As for time wasting, seems to me you are the one who has wasted a great deal of everyone's time by writing an article that was immediately nominated for AfD on the basis of numerous apparent inadequacies, and which others have had to spend a considerable amount of time trying to rectify, so I hardly think you are in a position to accuse others of this particular vice" that was a clear discrimination towards my English and writing skills. The truth is that Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) is extremely well sourced article, that was re-written by many other editors to remove any POV, there is no POV tag present in the article now. It was removed by me on March 13, and nobody posted it back. There was no valid reason not to promote the article. It was a wrong thing to do, and should be corrected.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to ask Materialscientist or anybody else to link me to few other examples that were closed as "no consensus". Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was certainly plenty of time to object to the promotion of this hook while the article was under discussion. To quietly vaporize the hook after it has been promoted and without returning it to the talk page for discussion is improper, at best. The hook should, at a minimum, be restored for further discussion. However, as the article is significantly improved and a neutral hook has been carefully crafted and promoted, I feel returning it directly to the queue is called for in this case. The objection raised is that it's "unencyclopedic" and, per WP:Unencyclopedic, ""Unencyclopedic" is meaningless in an argument, really." - Dravecky (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a convention here that there has to be at the very least, a solid consensus in favour of promoting an article. Usually even a couple of noes from regular contributors to DYK is enough to sink a nom. In this case, there were no less than 17 users who expressed the view at the AfD that the article was unencyclopedic, and it was closed as "no consensus". I hardly think that is the kind of article we would want to feature on the main page.

I might as well point out that had I placed a POV tag on the article, it would have been automatically disqualified until disputes had been resolved in any case. I refrained from doing that because I didn't want to be responsible for trying to fix the article, but certainly I would have been entitled to do so. I have done that in the past, but why should I have to? It is the responsibility of nominators to ensure their articles meet policy, and if they fail to do so, they only have themselves to blame if their submission is not promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The time and place to raise those objections was in the several weeks it was on the DYK talk page before it was promoted. In any case, you should have put the hook back on the DYK talk page for discussion instead of simply disappearing it. The objections of commenters in an AfD discussion that closed "no consensus" is interesting but not relevant here. Surely every article taken to AfD has at least some editor objecting to its inclusion in Misplaced Pages, at least initially. If they wanted to object to an article being promoted at DYK, the place to voice those objections is at DYK on the talk page.

While not every commenter at AfD is DYK-savvy, certainly that's not true of you, Gatoclass. If you felt the article should have been tagged, you should have tagged it. If you felt the article should not have been promoted after it survived AfD, you should have objected on the DYK talk page. The hook was promoted and you removed it from the prep area without discussion citing "unencyclopedic" as the reason. As this is not a valid reason, per policy, it should be restored or, at the very least, returned for further discussion. To simply stab it in the dark without tagging, discussion, or return after promotion is quite frankly unacceptable. - Dravecky (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I used the term "unencyclopedic" in this instance as a means of summarizing the various arguments that were made against the article at the AfD - specifically, that the article content was not notable, that it was POV, COATRACK, OR, SYNTH and so on.

As to your charge that removing it from the queue without restoring it to the Suggestions page was "improper" - I felt in this instance I was justified in doing so given the large number of users who had opposed it at the AfD. Given our usual policies about consensus, I felt it was self evident that the article was not going to achieve consensus here either.

I will concede in retrospect, that in spite of my sense that the article was clearly going to fail, it probably would have been better to return it to the Suggestions page, if only for the sake of transparency. I confess however that after a week of discussion about this article, and some less than pleasant exchanges with Mbz, I was hoping to spare myself and the community any further unpleasantness by simply dropping it from the page.

Since the discussion has now been reopened however, I am obliged to reiterate my opposition to the promotion of this article. I do not believe it is anywhere near NPOV and it is likely to take considerable work to fix it. I am hoping not to be forced to try and fix it myself, but if there is now going to be a move to promote the article, I will have no choice but to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Transparency in the face of controversy is, in my opinion, always the best policy. If proper objections had been raised on the Suggestions page, it likely would not have been promoted and this drama would have been avoided. To unilaterally completely delete a hook after promotion and without discussion, especially by an involved editor, is always going to create more controversy, both over the article and the tactics, than any discussion of the article by itself could ever raise. (Who ever said this stuff was supposed to be easy?) - Dravecky (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did raise objections at the Suggestions page. I think the mistake I made was not to reiterate them after matsci noted the AFD had closed as "no consensus" and Mbz proposed a new hook. I guess that made it look as if I had no further objections, when in fact my concerns had not changed. I have now rectified that error in the revived thread. Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have returned the hook to the Suggestions page for further discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Articles that have been nominated for Did you know