Template:Did you know nominations/Stanley plan

Stanley plan

 * ... that Virginia's policy of "massive resistance" led to enactment of the Stanley plan in September 1956, laws which required the immediate closure of any public school which racially integrated?
 * Reviewed: Fiona Gubelmann
 * Comment: The package of laws was signed into law on September 29, 1956. Perhaps this could go on Main Page on that anniversary date?

Created by Tim1965 (talk). Self nom at 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the hook can be trimmed and still be effective (although I admit hooks with multiple facts crammed in is one of my pet peeves):
 * ALT1: ... that the Stanley plan of 1956 mandated the immediate closure of any Virginia public school which racially integrated?
 * As for the date thing, I think September 29 is too long to wait for this, given that it's an anniversary (a date that's only really special for this article), not a holiday. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The DYK rule is six weeks. We're just under six weeks now. We can't say "United States public school" because it was only a Virginia law; I altered ALT1 accordingly. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any rule entitling DYKs to be held for six weeks (my understanding o the message at T:TDYK is that six weeks is an upper limit rather than an entitlement, and that some articles may simply not be held at all depending on the opinion of the reviewers). But I have had very little involvement with the special occasion holding stuff so I don't know what consensus is right now on these issues. You may want to ask about it at WT:DYK. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want to be in the position of encouraging people to not contribute to the encyclopedia — withholding articles until 10 days or so before the special occasion just to get a DYK on the appropriate date. But by strictly interpreting the special occasion rule, that's where we'll end up, I fear. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This argument has been brought up before, but I don't think it's fair to blame a DYK rule for "encouraging people not to contribute to the encyclopedia". If some editor withholds an article until a special date, why is that DYK's fault for having a rule, rather than the editor's fault for wanting their article to show up on a particular day? The primary purpose of DYK is to showcase new content, not to commemorate particular days, although I think we do make an effort to let those things overlap when possible.
 * Anyway, like I said above, it would be best to ask about this at WT:DYK rather than talking to me about it, since I don't know what the current consensus on this issue is. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6 weeks minus one day... quite close to the upper limit, I'd say. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Six weeks is six weeks, whether a nom beats the deadline by one day or 10, Crisco. My sense, Rjanag, is that DYK serves the greater good of Wikipedia, just as new content serves the greater good of Wikipedia (is its reason for being, really). To balance this, the six week "special occasion" rule was agreed upon. (I searched and searched and can't find that discussion archived anywhere.)  But it's really not about the WT:DYK discussion, as it is about the guideline on the DYK page. And the guideline said six weeks for "special occasions." Many noms regarding anniversary dates have been placed in the special occasion section over the past few months, and no one's quibbled.  My sense is that we can get a high-quality article on the main page under DYK on the anniversary date (when people will be looking for it), helping to promote Wikipedia and the good content it provides. Or we can toss it out there now and not help promote Wikpedia. The former allows the encyclopedia to not only have good content already online for six weeks, but also helps WP promote itself. The latter is just what it is. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hook: Interesting, short enough, cited to offline source, date proposal is fine. Hook wording is lacking, how about: ALT2 ... that Virginia's policy of "massive resistance" led to enactment of the Stanley plan in September 1956, laws which required the immediate closure of any public school which integrated racially? (order of the verb and adverb)
 * Article: Long enough, new enough, images are PD, AGF on offline source.
 * Summary:Symbol question.svg Waiting for feedback on ALT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ALT2 is fine. (I'm going to go sing the "Adverb Song" from Schoolhouse Rock.) - Tim1965 (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 good to go on September 29. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)