Template:Did you know nominations/Psylliodes luridipennis


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Psylliodes luridipennis

 * ... that the Lundy cabbage flea beetle is found only on the small British island of Lundy, where it feeds on the endemic Lundy cabbage?

Created by J Milburn (talk). Self nominated at 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article moved to mainspace 24 August, impeccable references (though two need to be expanded from just the doi - I think a bot normally does this?), hook cited and interesting, no apparent copy vio from given sources. Just awaiting a QPQ review - Dumelow (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I'll get to the QPQ, but I'm just heading out right now. Looks like DOI bot is down temporarily- I'll deal with it manually. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlinking Lundy and Lundy cabbage. Edwardx (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? They seem to be wholly appropriate to me- the beetle is interesting because of its association with them, and they're a long way from common terms. I've relinked them until you can explain what's wrong with them. J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewed: Paul Conrad. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

- good to go. I agree with Josh, I think the island and cabbage are sufficiently obscure that a link will be useful to many readers - Dumelow (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies - I should have explained my reasoning. I agree that Lundy and Lundy cabbage are not common words/terms, and normally they should be linked. However, in a DYK context, you run the risk of people clicking on Lundy or Lundy cabbage, rather than visiting Lundy cabbage flea beetle. I don't see how having them linked will increase the number of visitors to Lundy cabbage flea beetle, but conversely anyone visiting the DYK article will soon know about Lundy and Lundy cabbage, and can choose to continue to those articles. Does that make any sense? Edwardx (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion we shouldn't be making the reader click through to the article just to find out about the above topics. If a reader wants to find out more about Lundy or the cabbage why shouldn't they just be able to click on the link like they would if the words were on any other article page (in line with what I view as one of our most important objectives WP:BTW).  I don't think we should go out of our way to make it hard for the reader just to inflate the page views of a DYK article.  Sorry Edward, I appreciate your point of view and am not trying to be argumentative (there are more important things to argue about) just get my point of view across.  As always I am happy to stand out of the way of consensus - Dumelow (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Everywhere else on Wikipedia, I would agree with you about WP:BTW (whilst avoiding overlinking to common words, of course). But, I do think that DYK should be a bit of a special case. Nonetheless, I certainly agree that there are more important issues out there. So, I'm very happy to leave the hook as it is/was. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Edward, while I understand your reasoning, that strikes me as something of a fringe view. I would suggest you seek to change the appropriate guideline through discussion, rather than changing hooks directly. The "correct" article to click is already clear because of the bolding; if I bring readers to the article on Lundy or the cabbage instead of the beetle, that's OK- they're all interesting topics, and worth reading about! J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept that I should have raised the issue in discussion or created an ALT, rather than changing the wording. Edwardx (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)