Template:Did you know nominations/Imperial and US customary measurement systems

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 Orlady (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Imperial and US customary measurement systems

(

)

... that in 965 AD, King Edgar decreed "that only one weight and one measure should pass throughout the King's dominion"?

Created by Martinvl (talk). Self nominated at 21:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC).

This cannot be promoted because of a merge proposal. I will only start the review if the merge issue is settled, without the merge. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the possible sockpuppet issue per WP:ANI#Malicious merge proposal by a sockpuppet - Take 2 will need to be taken care of. SL93 (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Using a less drastic icon, since the X could cause this to be closed rather than what is usually done, which is to simply wait until the merge has been settled. (The ANI submission was archived without action.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I thought that I used that template...apparently not. SL93 (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the merge proposal with no consensus and notified all editors who contributed to the discussion. Martinvl (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The merge proposer was identified here as a sockpuppet of a banned user. This finally clears outstanding issues. Martinvl (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Full DYK review needed now that the merge proposal has been closed without any change to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will finish the review once I take care of another one. SL93 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The article and hook meet DYK criteria and I assume good faith on the offline references. A QPQ is not needed because the nominator only had one previous DYK credit, which was in 2010. SL93 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)