Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Cwmhiraeth
(Hook now satisfactory)
imported>Miyagawa
(Moved to prep 1)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DYKsubpage
+
{{#if:yes|<noinclude>[[Category:DYK/Successful nominations&nbsp;from January 2013]] [[Category:DYK/Successful nominations|Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]] [[Category:Passed DYK nominations&nbsp;from January 2013]]<div style="background-color:#F3F9FF; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA">
|monthyear=January 2013
+
:{{DYKF|11}}&nbsp;<i><b><span style="color:red">The following is an archived discussion</span></b> of <b>[[Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]]</b>'s <b>[[Template:NewDYKnomination|DYK nomination]]</b>. <b>Please do not modify this page</b>. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived <b>nomination</b>"s [[Template talk:Did you know nominations/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]], the nominated <b>article</b>'s [[Talk:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]], or the {{DYK blue}} [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know|(<b>talk</b>) <b>page</b>]]. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. <span style="color:red"><b>No further edits should be made to this page</b>.</span> <span style="float:right">See the <b>[[WP:TPG|talk page guidelines]]</b> for [[WP:ARCHIVE|(<b>more</b>)]] information.</i></span>{{clear}}
|passed=<!--When closing discussion, enter yes or no-->
+
 
|2=
+
The result was: <b>promoted</b> by [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC).<br />
 +
}}
 
====Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl====
 
====Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl====
 
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl}}
 
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl}}
<!-- 
 
 
                  Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion.
 
 
-->
 
 
{{*mp}}...  
 
{{*mp}}...  
<s>that the [[United States Supreme Court]] has agreed to hear a case on the [[Indian Child Welfare Act]] for only the second time in Supreme Court history?</s><!--
+
<s>that the [[United States Supreme Court]] has agreed to hear a case on the [[Indian Child Welfare Act]] for only the second time in Supreme Court history?</s>
-->
 
 
<small>Created  by [[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] ([[User talk:GregJackP|talk]]).  Self nom at 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
 
<small>Created  by [[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] ([[User talk:GregJackP|talk]]).  Self nom at 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
<!--
 
*{{DYKmake|Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl|GregJackP}}
 
-->
 
  
 
:*'''Comment''', the hook has to link to ''[[Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]]'' somewhere. Perhaps "... that '''''[[Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]]''''' is only the second case on the [[Indian Child Welfare Act]] taken on by the [[United States Supreme Court]]?" <small>If any of my terminology is non-standard, feel free to improve.</small> [[User:Chris857|Chris857]] ([[User talk:Chris857|talk]]) 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 
:*'''Comment''', the hook has to link to ''[[Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]]'' somewhere. Perhaps "... that '''''[[Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]]''''' is only the second case on the [[Indian Child Welfare Act]] taken on by the [[United States Supreme Court]]?" <small>If any of my terminology is non-standard, feel free to improve.</small> [[User:Chris857|Chris857]] ([[User talk:Chris857|talk]]) 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 27: Line 19:
 
:*I've just put a notice on GregJackP's talk page. While the page says he's retired (posted February 6), he made a couple of edits today, so I think we should allow a full week from now for a response on the issue. Alternatively, someone here could try to address the "second ICWA case" issue in the article/sourcing, or propose a new hook that avoids the "second" part altogether. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 
:*I've just put a notice on GregJackP's talk page. While the page says he's retired (posted February 6), he made a couple of edits today, so I think we should allow a full week from now for a response on the issue. Alternatively, someone here could try to address the "second ICWA case" issue in the article/sourcing, or propose a new hook that avoids the "second" part altogether. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 
::*It sent me an email notice (I forgot to disable it) - my other edits were to an FA that was still in FAC when I retired.  I added a sentence and ref to the U.S. Supreme Court subsection, last sentence.  Hopefully this will take care of it.  <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">[[User:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:110%;font-family:Mistral">GregJackP</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:60%">Boomer!</span>]]</span>  23:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 
::*It sent me an email notice (I forgot to disable it) - my other edits were to an FA that was still in FAC when I retired.  I added a sentence and ref to the U.S. Supreme Court subsection, last sentence.  Hopefully this will take care of it.  <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">[[User:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:110%;font-family:Mistral">GregJackP</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:60%">Boomer!</span>]]</span>  23:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] The hook is now supported by an inline citation and this nomination is ready to go. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
+
:*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] The hook is now supported by an inline citation and this nomination is ready to go. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC){{#if:yes|</div></noinclude>|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template talk:Did you know/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[Category:Pending DYK nominations]][[Category:DYK/Nominations|Pending]]|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:Did you know nominations/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[Category:DYK/Nominations|Pending]][[Category:Pending DYK nominations]]}}}}}}<!--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 10:59, 19 February 2013

Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

  • ...

that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on the Indian Child Welfare Act for only the second time in Supreme Court history? Created by GregJackP (talk). Self nom at 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment, my bad, sorry (I know better -facepalm- ). I like your hook, let's use it. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is only the second case on the Indian Child Welfare Act taken on by the United States Supreme Court?"

  • I listed the current hook as Alt1 and struck the original hook. GregJackP Boomer! 20:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote4.png Needs full review. Chris857 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough, the only problem is with the hook. I can see no mention in the article of this being the second ICWA case taken on by the Supreme Court. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've just put a notice on GregJackP's talk page. While the page says he's retired (posted February 6), he made a couple of edits today, so I think we should allow a full week from now for a response on the issue. Alternatively, someone here could try to address the "second ICWA case" issue in the article/sourcing, or propose a new hook that avoids the "second" part altogether. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It sent me an email notice (I forgot to disable it) - my other edits were to an FA that was still in FAC when I retired. I added a sentence and ref to the U.S. Supreme Court subsection, last sentence. Hopefully this will take care of it. GregJackP Boomer! 23:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg The hook is now supported by an inline citation and this nomination is ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)