A fact from Gibraltar War Memorial appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 September 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
I really fail to see the problem. This is a well written and balanced article which has met the DYK criteria. There is therefore no reason for it not to have appeared. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been eleven articles on Gibraltar this month. That's far more than would be reasonable for a subject area this size. Well-written or not, this is surely excessive. Shritwod (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion as there is currently no cap on the number of DYK hooks on a certain topic/place that can appear on the mainpage. So instead of discrediting hard working contributors as some are doing elsewhere (I don't mean you), they should maybe look at revising the DYK rules. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
