Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/2.0 (film)"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Cyclonebiskit
(reply)
imported>Zanhe
(comment)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
:{{U|Cyclonebiskit}} - actually it did. It was recreated on December 11, 2015 as seen here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2.0_(film)&oldid=694773405] - previously it had been a redirect page. Well now that you've removed it, without properly checking the article's history, it has sort of removed this article's chances of being featured on [[Wikipedia:Did_you_know|DYK]]. Sigh - can you change your decision? {{smiley}}. [[User:Editor 2050|Editor 2050]] ([[User talk:Editor 2050|talk]]) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 
:{{U|Cyclonebiskit}} - actually it did. It was recreated on December 11, 2015 as seen here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2.0_(film)&oldid=694773405] - previously it had been a redirect page. Well now that you've removed it, without properly checking the article's history, it has sort of removed this article's chances of being featured on [[Wikipedia:Did_you_know|DYK]]. Sigh - can you change your decision? {{smiley}}. [[User:Editor 2050|Editor 2050]] ([[User talk:Editor 2050|talk]]) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 
::{{u|Editor 2050}} – the nomination was on December 22, 11 days after the article's re-creation. The work needs to have been done within a week (7 days) of the nomination for it to be valid. If you improve the article to [[WP:GA|good article status]], you can renominate it for DYK in the future, but I'd imagine you'd have to wait for the film to release and all that comes with that. If the nomination was just a few days earlier, it would have been good to go. I'm sorry, but that's sadly how it goes. ~ [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|chat]]) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 
::{{u|Editor 2050}} – the nomination was on December 22, 11 days after the article's re-creation. The work needs to have been done within a week (7 days) of the nomination for it to be valid. If you improve the article to [[WP:GA|good article status]], you can renominate it for DYK in the future, but I'd imagine you'd have to wait for the film to release and all that comes with that. If the nomination was just a few days earlier, it would have been good to go. I'm sorry, but that's sadly how it goes. ~ [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|chat]]) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 +
::: [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] Not only was the nomination late, but the article had rather significant content (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2.0_(film)&oldid=685505279]) before being turned into a redirect, and the current version has not been expanded 5x. -[[User:Zanhe|Zanhe]] ([[User talk:Zanhe|talk]]) 17:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:53, 20 January 2016

2.0 (film)

  • ALT1:... that the forthcoming science fiction film, Shankar's 2.0, is a sequel to Enthiran (2010)?
  • ALT2:... that the makers of India's most expensive film, 2.0, held discussions with Arnold Schwarzenegger before finalising Akshay Kumar to play the antagonist?
  • Comment: India's most expensive ever film / big star cast + technical team / a sequel to Enthiran

Created/expanded by Editor 2050 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

Template:U - actually it did. It was recreated on December 11, 2015 as seen here [1] - previously it had been a redirect page. Well now that you've removed it, without properly checking the article's history, it has sort of removed this article's chances of being featured on DYK. Sigh - can you change your decision? Face-smile.svg. Editor 2050 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Template:U – the nomination was on December 22, 11 days after the article's re-creation. The work needs to have been done within a week (7 days) of the nomination for it to be valid. If you improve the article to good article status, you can renominate it for DYK in the future, but I'd imagine you'd have to wait for the film to release and all that comes with that. If the nomination was just a few days earlier, it would have been good to go. I'm sorry, but that's sadly how it goes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Not only was the nomination late, but the article had rather significant content (see [2]) before being turned into a redirect, and the current version has not been expanded 5x. -Zanhe (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)