Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas

Ants of Kansas
Withdrawn by nominator.


 * ... that ants of the subfamily Dolichoderinae may be the only ants that can survive in Kansas` harsher environments?

Created by Joe Chill (talk). Self nom at 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The piped link in the hook is not very intuitive--someone looking at the hook wouldn't guess that it leads to Ants of Kansas. I'd suggest:
 * ALT1: ... that ants of the subfamily Dolichoderinae may be the only ants of Kansas that can survive in the state's harsher environments? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds better. I am a bit confused on when to use harsher or harshest or if only one of them should be used. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Harshest" implies the very harshest environments (i.e., a small set); "harsher" implies those, as well as environments that are harsh but not quite as harsh as those (i.e., a slightly larger set than "harshest"). Logically speaking, then, if they are the only ones that can survive the larger set, they are also the only ones that can survive the smaller set contained by the larger set. Really, though, both wordings are ok; I happen to prefer "harsher" in this instance. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of changes to ALT1. Taxa at the family level (and above) should not be italicised. I also think that "harshest" goes beyond the text in the source. The harshest environments for terrestrial animals such as ants in the state are probably rivers and lakes, but among the harsher environments are some which can house dolichoderine ants. Just because you can survive in a harsh environment, doesn't mean you can survive the harshest. I'm nitpicking, probably, but it does no harm. (One might also consider changing the opening words to "... that members of the subfamily" to avoid repeating "ant".) --Stemonitis (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Another enhancement would be to reorganize the list by subfamily. I'm not aware of other "ants by state" articles to use as examples (you are a pioneer, apparently), but List of birds of Canada and the United States is a nice example of how an "organisms by place" article can be enhanced. In particular, I notice that the list of species is organized by taxonomic group, and general information about each taxonomic group precedes the list of birds in that group. You could do something similar with the subfamilies of ants. Adopting that kind of organization would give the reader a more satisfying experience. (And if Commons has images of Kansas ant species, you might even be able to illustrate the article!) --Orlady (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I am allergic to DYK hooks that are isolated factoids -- and thus dead ends for the reader. This proposed hook is one such dead end. That is, the reader who wonders "what kind of 'harsher environments'?" or "what is it about this subfamily that allows it to survive?" will click on the article and get no additional information about the hook, then will click on the online source and read: "These ants are often locally abundant and may be the only species encountered in the harsher environments in the state." I find that the entire prose section of the "Ants of Kansas" article is a collection of interesting, but isolated, facts like this one. I'd feel better about the article -- and the hook -- if the article provided some more meaningful insight into the topic of ants in Kansas. The source is dated 1994 and it cites several more extensive sources as "in preparation" -- presumably at least some of those papers got published, and could be cited to add some substance to the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the reader that thinks, "What are the other common insects of Kansas?" or wants to read more about Dolichoderinae and it's associated articles, what if the member who is interested in reading about the subfamily expands that article or stubs relating to that article, what if the reader has an interest in species that can be found in Kansas, what if someone decides to expand the article that has a lot of knowledge on the subject, what if the reader is interested in common Midwestern ants? I hate what if's. I myself feel that the facts are meaningful to someone who finds this article. What person would read this article if they aren't interested in ants? Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's not suitable, what about this - that ants of the subfamily Ecitoninae are the only ants of Kansas that go mostly unnoticed because they can not tolerate direct sunlight?. It says what ants mostly go unnoticed in Kansas and says why. More importantly, it makes more sense to the reader because it is easy to get to the conclusion that the ant can not tolerate direct sunlight and spends most of its time in darker areas. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you still say that the article needs substance, that is your opinion. Your personal opinion shouldn't decide whether it should be on DYK or not. It passes every DYK aspect. Joe Chill (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A DYK hook is supposed to entice a reader to go to the highlighted article, generally to learn more details of the story behind the hook fact. You have suggested some interesting hooks, but because the article has no information about any of these topics beyond the enticing detail in the hook, following one of these hooks will not give the user a positive experience. The article is a disconnected collection of isolated facts. The text could be described accurately as "Trivia about ants in Kansas," but Wikipedia is not for trivia. Additionally, DYK is not an entitlement for every new article that meets the minimum criterion of 1500 characters of text. Although this article meets that minimum criterion, it does not yet have the minimum level of substance we normally hope to find in DYK articles. This is a broad topic that could be expanded and enhanced by adding more information on the specific types of ants or the geographic occurrence of specific species within Kansas (to name two topics). For example, this article has interesting information on the geography of carpenter ants in the U.S., with different species in eastern vs. western Kansas. There is also some information on carpenter ant habitats in the state.
 * ... that over 100 species of ants are indigenous to Kansas? Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That list that you posted is a featured list. It's not a requirement for DYK articles to resemble featured articles. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I cited that article as an example -- for ideas on how to organize this kind of article. As it happens, I was trying to help you with the article -- admittedly, not as extensive a piece of help as the time back in October that there were serious issues with one of your DYK noms (copyvios, to be specific), you didn't respond when you were contacted about those issues, and Mikenorton and I edited the article to eliminate issues and you got full credit for the DYK. Now that it is clear that you consider DYK to something you are entitled to, I guess you aren't likely to get much more help or advice from other volunteers. --Orlady (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel entitled to it. Personally, I think that it is crap mainly because of the new system. End this DYK nomination already. Joe Chill (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what is being requested is simply that the article itself be expanded a bit to offer more information for our readers. The topic itself has trememdous potential.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is DYK length, Schmidt suggested a hook that encompasses the whole article (someone will probably say that it is not interesting though despite me finding it interesting), it is confusing to know what you want me to do with the article when you link to a featured article, and I am unhappy that the article was compared to trivia when I'm against trivia. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All of my DYKs could be considered "isolated factoids". I guess DYK has changed beyond my recognition. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I retract my nomination. I'm done with DYK. If "isolated factoids" aren't allowed now, I'm just done. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the article, I think that a bit of expansion would be necessary due to the breadth of the subject. Comparisons to other articles aside, I feel like this does not give enough depth of understanding to the reader. It is much harder to write a decent list with prose than an article on a single subject, because the breadth of the subject is so much wider; hopefully, you can expand a bit on the subject (perhaps up to 3000 chars) to give the reader a better experience. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't easy to find sources relating to ants in Kansas. So forget it. My DYK is done with and I'm still done with DYK. Size problems aside, it's not trivia and it doesn't matter that it an an "isolated factoid". I hate seeing editors rate DYKs as if they have to resemble a Good Article or above. I hate the new rating system so I won't rate DYKs either. I hate the review a nomination if you nominate an article requirement. I hate that DYK has become a bit of a joke with so many copyvios and plaigairism articles being promoted. I hate the constant errors on hooks that are on the main page. It's a lot of hates, but I hate all of that. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggested another source for you in my comments above, and I suggested reorganizing a list in a manner that would add information value to the article even if no other content was added. You are giving me the distinct impression that your main interest is complaining; I hope I am wrong -- maybe you were just having a bad day. --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my main interest is complaining when I do new page patrol, participate in AfD, create articles, and expand articles. I can complain if I want, it really is happening a lot in terms of DYK. I give up on this article and I want this withdrawn. On a related note, I just so happen to not like the new set-up which is unrelated to this article. I don't like DYK and I won't participate in it anymore and it isn't your concern. I stand by my belief that DYK has become a joke. Joe Chill (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)