Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/2019 Six-red World Championship"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>BlueMoonset (QPQ requires that a review covers all the DYK criteria and an icon be given) |
imported>Epicgenius (re) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::::I don't think it matters too much. The reviews normally change a lot between the initial review and it being on main page anyway, I doubt this would all work if we forced every review to get to that stage for QPQ. Best Wishes, '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC) | ::::I don't think it matters too much. The reviews normally change a lot between the initial review and it being on main page anyway, I doubt this would all work if we forced every review to get to that stage for QPQ. Best Wishes, '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC) | ||
:::::[[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]], [[User:Epicgenius|epicgenius]], in order for a QPQ to qualify, it needs to have reached the point where all the DYK criteria have been covered and a review icon given, even if that is a query or "maybe" or even "no" icon rather than one of the two ticks. If a tick isn't given, the reviewer typically sticks around to check that the requested improvements are done, but that isn't required for QPQ credit to be obtained. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC) | :::::[[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]], [[User:Epicgenius|epicgenius]], in order for a QPQ to qualify, it needs to have reached the point where all the DYK criteria have been covered and a review icon given, even if that is a query or "maybe" or even "no" icon rather than one of the two ticks. If a tick isn't given, the reviewer typically sticks around to check that the requested improvements are done, but that isn't required for QPQ credit to be obtained. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::{{u|BlueMoonset}}, does this mean i would have to stick around to see if {{u|Lee Vilenski}} has done the QPQ? I don't think it makes much of a difference in either case. I just find it an inconvenience to revoke the tick only to place it again a few hours/days later. [[User:Epicgenius|epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 15:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 15:59, 12 September 2019
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2019 Six-red World Championship
- ... that the winners of the 2019 World Cup doubles snooker event competed as opponents in the final of the 2019 Six-red World Championship? Source: http://worldsnooker.com/six-red-king-maguire-ends-five-year-drought/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019
- Comment: In process of re-wording article and expanding, but should meet the criteria.
Created by Lee Vilenski (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC).
- Template:Re I'll review this one. epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Lua error: expandTemplate: template "y" does not exist.
- Added a QPQ which I am reviewing now: Template:U Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Re
Good to go now. I don't think it matters that you finished a review, just that you started it. I may be wrong, though, but trust that you will actually finish that QPQ. epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters too much. The reviews normally change a lot between the initial review and it being on main page anyway, I doubt this would all work if we forced every review to get to that stage for QPQ. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski, epicgenius, in order for a QPQ to qualify, it needs to have reached the point where all the DYK criteria have been covered and a review icon given, even if that is a query or "maybe" or even "no" icon rather than one of the two ticks. If a tick isn't given, the reviewer typically sticks around to check that the requested improvements are done, but that isn't required for QPQ credit to be obtained. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Template:U, does this mean i would have to stick around to see if Template:U has done the QPQ? I don't think it makes much of a difference in either case. I just find it an inconvenience to revoke the tick only to place it again a few hours/days later. epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski, epicgenius, in order for a QPQ to qualify, it needs to have reached the point where all the DYK criteria have been covered and a review icon given, even if that is a query or "maybe" or even "no" icon rather than one of the two ticks. If a tick isn't given, the reviewer typically sticks around to check that the requested improvements are done, but that isn't required for QPQ credit to be obtained. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters too much. The reviews normally change a lot between the initial review and it being on main page anyway, I doubt this would all work if we forced every review to get to that stage for QPQ. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Re
- Added a QPQ which I am reviewing now: Template:U Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)