Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/1 point player"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Mandarax
m (Add one to {{DYK nompage links}} and rm a bunch of blank lines between the credits)
imported>Graeme Bartlett
(boring yet extreme hook)
Line 108: Line 108:
 
* Do we need so many articles with repetitive content? Many sections like History, Getting classified are same, in case of swimming. "Sport" is similar, each with a definition of Jane Buckley in case of swimming. I suggest a merge into 3 articles: "Wheelchair basketball classifications" (with all point player article), "Disability swimming classifications" (with the S) and "Disability athletics classifications" (with the T).--[[User:Redtigerxyz|<font color = "red" >Redtigerxyz</font>]] <sup> [[User talk:Redtigerxyz|Talk]] </sup> 06:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 
* Do we need so many articles with repetitive content? Many sections like History, Getting classified are same, in case of swimming. "Sport" is similar, each with a definition of Jane Buckley in case of swimming. I suggest a merge into 3 articles: "Wheelchair basketball classifications" (with all point player article), "Disability swimming classifications" (with the S) and "Disability athletics classifications" (with the T).--[[User:Redtigerxyz|<font color = "red" >Redtigerxyz</font>]] <sup> [[User talk:Redtigerxyz|Talk]] </sup> 06:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 
:* I think re-organising the swimming classifications as per the above makes it read better.  That said, I feel the DYK contains too much detail in its current form and something like "5 wheelchair basketball, 13 swimming and 22 track classifications" is a more reasonable level of detail for the general reader. Looking at the underlying articles, I tend to agree with [[User:Redtigerxyz]] that they contain a significant degree of overlap and could reasonably be merged into 3 articles.  --[[User:PeterJeremy|PeterJeremy]] ([[User talk:PeterJeremy|talk]]) 08:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 
:* I think re-organising the swimming classifications as per the above makes it read better.  That said, I feel the DYK contains too much detail in its current form and something like "5 wheelchair basketball, 13 swimming and 22 track classifications" is a more reasonable level of detail for the general reader. Looking at the underlying articles, I tend to agree with [[User:Redtigerxyz]] that they contain a significant degree of overlap and could reasonably be merged into 3 articles.  --[[User:PeterJeremy|PeterJeremy]] ([[User talk:PeterJeremy|talk]]) 08:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 +
:::[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]]For DYK purposes the articles have all been made in the required timeframe, are just long enough or plenty long enough, and none have yet been nominated for merger or deletion. They are referenced and neutral.  However this rule appears at 1a: "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article", but in this case text is spun between many of these articles.  As a whole however the DYK requirements are certainly met for the first one.  The hook is allowed some leeway in being longer because extra new DYK articles are hooked, so the length is covered.  However the hook is not very exciting as it currently reads! This is an extreme hook. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 10:03, 20 November 2011 (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 10:03, 20 November 2011

1 point player



Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Do we need so many articles with repetitive content? Many sections like History, Getting classified are same, in case of swimming. "Sport" is similar, each with a definition of Jane Buckley in case of swimming. I suggest a merge into 3 articles: "Wheelchair basketball classifications" (with all point player article), "Disability swimming classifications" (with the S) and "Disability athletics classifications" (with the T).--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think re-organising the swimming classifications as per the above makes it read better. That said, I feel the DYK contains too much detail in its current form and something like "5 wheelchair basketball, 13 swimming and 22 track classifications" is a more reasonable level of detail for the general reader. Looking at the underlying articles, I tend to agree with User:Redtigerxyz that they contain a significant degree of overlap and could reasonably be merged into 3 articles. --PeterJeremy (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol question.svgFor DYK purposes the articles have all been made in the required timeframe, are just long enough or plenty long enough, and none have yet been nominated for merger or deletion. They are referenced and neutral. However this rule appears at 1a: "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article", but in this case text is spun between many of these articles. As a whole however the DYK requirements are certainly met for the first one. The hook is allowed some leeway in being longer because extra new DYK articles are hooked, so the length is covered. However the hook is not very exciting as it currently reads! This is an extreme hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)