| Revision as of 19:21, 14 April 2014 editLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,670 edits →Your [] nomination of []: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:57, 14 April 2014 edit undoDarkwarriorblake (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers67,874 edits →A pie for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLoveNext edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| == Your ] nomination of ]== | == Your ] nomination of ]== | ||
| Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 19:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 19:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == A pie for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For undertaking the '']'' GA review and helping improve it towards an eventual FA! ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
Revision as of 19:57, 14 April 2014
 Archives (Index) |
GTA V
Regarding the revert here, both the WP:OVERLINK issues as well as changes to link, e.g. changing ] to ], are done by Reflinks. Best, Sam Sailor 14:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sam Sailor; So having the link as ] is okay, and your change was just a Reflinks default? And the same for linking publishers in Template:Cite web? In regards to citing publishers in the template, User:Rhain1999 and I agreed that either every publisher is linked every time in the (publisher=) field or that they are linked in the first instance and never again after that. Rhain went with the former. Is that okay? (We have the article at FAC so small things such as this matter). CR4ZE (t) 14:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- As for overlinking, if two of those IGN sources are a mile apart in the reflist it seems logical that they are both linked. If there are, say, 50 of them, maybe not. However, if you guys found it appropriate, I'm the last person to waste time on it. But Reflink seems to think differently. Yes, it's the default apparently, no action on my part there. As for the links to redirects, the choices Reflink makes is without question also IMO less valuable than links directly to sub sections. In other words: I understand your motivation for reverting. Best, Sam Sailor 14:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding redirects, well, it's maybe a situation where Reflink's choice makes sense in some cases, but not in other cases. Have a read of User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Redirecting links to sections. Best, Sam Sailor 15:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- In the instances of sub-section wikilinking in Grand Theft Auto V, they make the most sense as they are. If "melee phase" or "continue point" ever split off into their own article, that would require going through 'What links here' to fix the redundant links from other pages, but there is I'm sure a streamlined way of doing so should that ever happen. CR4ZE (t) 04:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Threes!
Thanks again for the thorough review. I appreciate your diligence. (And that Yeezus thread was really interesting... but let's promise not to do that.) See you around czar ♔ 01:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also if you have any extra FAC advice for the article, let me know (I'll watch this page) czar ♔ 02:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- The debate over Yeezus to me brings up the need to have a wider discussion at a WikiProject (WP:ALBUM/ WP:VG), resulting in the insertion of a new guideline into the project's MoS. In regards to Threes! being sent to FAC, I think the mid-sentence footnotes would come up in addition to the "universal acclaim" use. The prose would need meticulous tightening. Take the following sentence as an example: "The game had no inclination towards minimalism and the pair felt that they needed game mechanics to make the game appear more difficult and worthy of player attention". A mouthful. There's three uses each of the words "the" and "game", which would make the sentence's prose a little unwieldy to read. Consider things like that, and as it's quite a short article, keep reading it aloud to reword sentences to be as succinct as possible.
- Feel free, if you're interested, to move along my GAN for GTA V development or GTA V's FAC. Don't forget we have work to do on Saints Row, but like you I'm not rushing to work on that one. CR4ZE (t) 04:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Development of Grand Theft Auto V
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Development of Grand Theft Auto V you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Development of Grand Theft Auto V
The article Development of Grand Theft Auto V you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Development of Grand Theft Auto V for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Development of Grand Theft Auto V
The article Development of Grand Theft Auto V you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Development of Grand Theft Auto V for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Development of Grand Theft Auto V
 | On 4 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Development of Grand Theft Auto V, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the five-year development of Grand Theft Auto V was conducted by a team of over 1,000 people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Development of Grand Theft Auto V. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 06:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Also, congratulations on the DYK for the Development article! -- Rhain1999 06:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Music of Grand Theft Auto V
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Music of Grand Theft Auto V you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
For undertaking the South Park: The Stick of Truth GA review and helping improve it towards an eventual FA! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC) |