Nowadays,
Template:Did you know nominations/Tasitolu has become a topic of interest to many people around the world. Whether for its impact on society, its relevance in history, its influence on popular culture or for any other reason,
Template:Did you know nominations/Tasitolu has captured the attention of individuals of different ages, genders and nationalities. In this article, we will thoroughly explore the importance of
Template:Did you know nominations/Tasitolu and discuss its relevance today. From its impact on people's well-being to its role in the global economy, we will study all aspects related to
Template:Did you know nominations/Tasitolu to provide a complete and enriching vision on this topic. Get ready to immerse yourself in the fascinating world of
Template:Did you know nominations/Tasitolu and discover everything behind its meaning!
- The following discussion 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Tasitolu
Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Rosiestep (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 19:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed Forbes' Quarry
DYKcheck tool reports "Article has not been expanded 5x since it was created". (Article history shows 2,074 bytes when imported from German Wikipedia, is now 9,086 bytes. Just a little short.) Length is good, creation date is good. Citations are good. Hook facts neutral and verified by reference. Hook formatted correctly. Article just needs expansion to clear DYKcheck tool. Belchfire (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why would a brand new article have to be expanded 5 times? Bizarre. I nominated it on the 5th day of creation as a new article.
- I think the length is ok now, but if not, just let me know and I'll continue to work on it. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've done what I could. If a recheck doesn't indicate it's long enough, perhaps Dr. B or Gerda have access to additional resources. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have it Watchlisted and I've been monitoring all morning in hopes that the article would cross the threshold. It must be close - the raw size has gone from 2,974 to 12,914 bytes (although that includes all of the references and mark-up). Belchfire (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
All issues cleared, article is good to go.
Belchfire (
talk) 16:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)