This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Holy Door (Santiago de Compostela) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
A fact from Holy Door (Santiago de Compostela) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 July 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that a year when the Feast of Saint James falls on a Sunday is designated a Jacobean Holy Year, and the Holy Door(pictured) at the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela is unblocked for all to enter?
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 Edge3 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have submitted these to the GOCE. Please hold off on reviewing these until that review is complete. --evrik(talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) All done[reply]
Comment once approved, can this be held until July 25? --evrik(talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying for July 25 will first depend on (1) the reviewer(s) determining whether the hook is 'sufficiently special' for that date and that running it would not cause neutrality problems (see WP:SOHA for more information), and (2) getting consensus to extend the 'newness' requirement beyond six weeks, for which I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Requested extension for special occasion hook. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lack of objection was a tacit approval. BTW, the point is moot until the articles are reviewed. --evrik(talk) 14:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Theleekycauldron about this off-wiki and it doesn't seem to be the case: they said that for an IAR request to be granted, there has to be an explicit approval, rather than a lack of disapproval. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions off-wiki aren't policy ... in any case, we're currently sitting at nine weeks. If this sits for three more week, it will be at six weeks. --evrik(talk) 01:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC):[reply]
Firstly, we go by nomination date and not review date, so even if we wait three weeks, the request cannot be granted without an explicit discussion that gives an IAR exemption. Secondly, for an IAR request to be granted, there has to be explicit approval. "Silence means approval" is not how things work on Wikipedia. In any case this probably should run as a regular, non-special occasion hook instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps we should give this a rest for now – nomination awaits full review anyway. I'll also go ahead and throw in my support for the special occasion and associated exemption – if WT:DYK isn't interested, a small local consensus should suffice. If NLH5 and the reviewer agree, that's more than enough. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 15:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: - I see no issues and have no objections to proposed front-page date etc. Let me know if should be doing something else to move this through otherwise thanks everybody and cheers. jengod (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why people are having policy discussions off-wiki, as they don't carry any weight here. I'll go ahead and promote this for July 25. Edge3 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps we should give this a rest for now – nomination awaits full review anyway. I'll also go ahead and throw in my support for the special occasion and associated exemption – if WT:DYK isn't interested, a small local consensus should suffice. If NLH5 and the reviewer agree, that's more than enough. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 15:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Trump alternate electors controversy is dated to July 2022 which I presume is fine just wanted to mention; also this is REVIEW 1 of 3 jengod (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Burns done 2022-April