Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Mega Man Powered Up"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Lajbi (grammar) |
imported>Crisco 1492 (no) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{#if:no|<noinclude>[[Category:Failed DYK nominations from January 2014]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
| − | | | + | :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|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: '''rejected''' by — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)<br />}} | |
| + | Length | ||
{{DYKC}} | {{DYKC}} | ||
====Mega Man Powered Up==== | ====Mega Man Powered Up==== | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Mega Man Powered Up|Mega Man Powered Up}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Mega Man Powered Up|Mega Man Powered Up}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* ... that the poor sales of '''''[[Mega Man Powered Up]]''''', the remake to the [[Mega Man (video game)|1987 original]], caused plans for a ''[[Mega Man 2]]'' remake to fall through? | * ... that the poor sales of '''''[[Mega Man Powered Up]]''''', the remake to the [[Mega Man (video game)|1987 original]], caused plans for a ''[[Mega Man 2]]'' remake to fall through? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:* | :* | ||
<small>Created by [[User:New Age Retro Hippie|New Age Retro Hippie]] ([[User talk:New Age Retro Hippie|talk]]), [[User:GamerPro64|GamerPro64]] ([[User talk:GamerPro64|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:GamerPro64|GamerPro64]] ([[User talk:GamerPro64|talk]]) at 03:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)</small>. | <small>Created by [[User:New Age Retro Hippie|New Age Retro Hippie]] ([[User talk:New Age Retro Hippie|talk]]), [[User:GamerPro64|GamerPro64]] ([[User talk:GamerPro64|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:GamerPro64|GamerPro64]] ([[User talk:GamerPro64|talk]]) at 03:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)</small>. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:*[[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] Am I missing something? What you say is only featured in the lead of the article and no source is given. Secondly I'm a in a bit trouble here. ''The article isn't new''. It existed then became a redirect page then it got recreated. So it is hard to separate the pre-existing article from the current one - it can't be said that it's null. If redirects could work as such then every DYK guideline could be hijacked by simply redirecting a long article for some time then recreate it and there you go it's a new article. As the [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines|Supplementary guidelines]] states:"Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.". So back to the point. The previous article on 27 August 2008 was 6443 characters long while the newest version has 10452. That's barely a fivefold expansion either. I am curious on others' take on the problem but I'd say no considering that sole issue. [[User:Lajbi|'''<font face="Lucida handwriting" color="#78866B">Lajbi</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Lajbi|'''<font color="#C3B091">Holla @ me</font>''']]<small> • [[User:Lajbi/Current project|'''<font color="#808000">CP</font>''']]</small></sup> 10:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC) | :*[[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] Am I missing something? What you say is only featured in the lead of the article and no source is given. Secondly I'm a in a bit trouble here. ''The article isn't new''. It existed then became a redirect page then it got recreated. So it is hard to separate the pre-existing article from the current one - it can't be said that it's null. If redirects could work as such then every DYK guideline could be hijacked by simply redirecting a long article for some time then recreate it and there you go it's a new article. As the [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines|Supplementary guidelines]] states:"Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.". So back to the point. The previous article on 27 August 2008 was 6443 characters long while the newest version has 10452. That's barely a fivefold expansion either. I am curious on others' take on the problem but I'd say no considering that sole issue. [[User:Lajbi|'''<font face="Lucida handwriting" color="#78866B">Lajbi</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Lajbi|'''<font color="#C3B091">Holla @ me</font>''']]<small> • [[User:Lajbi/Current project|'''<font color="#808000">CP</font>''']]</small></sup> 10:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | :::I can easily think of an alternative hook for this but if the article failed to meet with the guidelines I understand. [[User talk:GamerPro64|<font color="red">GamerPro64</font>]] 05:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC){{#if:no|</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.--> | ||
Latest revision as of 02:53, 10 January 2014
- 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Length
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mega Man Powered Up
- ... that the poor sales of Mega Man Powered Up, the remake to the 1987 original, caused plans for a Mega Man 2 remake to fall through?
Created by New Age Retro Hippie (talk), GamerPro64 (talk). Nominated by GamerPro64 (talk) at 03:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC).
- 16px Am I missing something? What you say is only featured in the lead of the article and no source is given. Secondly I'm a in a bit trouble here. The article isn't new. It existed then became a redirect page then it got recreated. So it is hard to separate the pre-existing article from the current one - it can't be said that it's null. If redirects could work as such then every DYK guideline could be hijacked by simply redirecting a long article for some time then recreate it and there you go it's a new article. As the Supplementary guidelines states:"Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.". So back to the point. The previous article on 27 August 2008 was 6443 characters long while the newest version has 10452. That's barely a fivefold expansion either. I am curious on others' take on the problem but I'd say no considering that sole issue. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can easily think of an alternative hook for this but if the article failed to meet with the guidelines I understand. GamerPro64 05:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
