Talk:Holy Door (Santiago de Compostela)

Did you know nomination

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)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Holy door (Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela)
• Feast of Saint James
• Jacobean Holy Year

)

Holy door at the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela

• ... that a year when the Feast of Saint James falls on a Sunday, is designated a Jacobean Holy Year and the holy door at the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela is unblocked for all to enter? Source: When is the next Holy Year?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Trump alternate electors controversy, Template:Did you know nominations/Loli (district), and Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Burns

Created by Evrik (talk) and Reidgreg (talk). Self-nominated at 03:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Holy door (Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Adding @Reidgreg: to this nomination. --evrik ^(talk) 22:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• 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
• Comment once approved, can this be held until July 25? --evrik ^(talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  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)

It appears that the discussion was archived without a response. Does this count as a soft decline of the special occasion request? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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):

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)

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)

• Reviewing jengod (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

REVIEW 1 of 3: Feast of Saint James ✅

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: 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)

REVIEW 2 of 3: Holy door (Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela) ✅

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Template:Did you know nominations/Loli (district) done 2022-August jengod (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

REVIEW 3 of 3: Jacobean Holy Year ✅

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Burns done 2022-April
Overall: jengod (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)