Template:Did you know nominations/A Night in Terror Tower
- 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 Allen3 talk 10:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
A Night in Terror Tower
edit- ... that the Goosebumps book A Night in Terror Tower was adapted into a two-part television episode, an audiobook, and a board game?
- Reviewed: Tampuan language
- Comment: DYKcheck says that this was not 5x expanded, but it should be based on the earlier redirect. The longest version was only a long overly detailed unreferenced plot, which was later shortened and merged to the list of Goosebumps books.
5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self nominated at 19:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC).
Need to add the word "television" before the word "episode". Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Needs a full review now that the single issue mentioned above has been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It may have been 5x expanded but there are only about 1300 characters of original text. (The plot summary, titles, refs etc don't count). Sorry this isn't long enough to qualify for DYK. Victuallers (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)I stand corrected and slightly surprised Victuallers (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)- That is not true. There is no such rule about the plot. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, however technically expansion is calculated from the longest previous article. I think a case of IAR would be in order though, since it has been stagnant for three years.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Two sentences still remain at Goosebumps (original series). It is a 5x expansion from that. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset also said that IAR may be possible so that is two editors if the 5x expansion doesn't count from the two sentences. SL93 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, however technically expansion is calculated from the longest previous article. I think a case of IAR would be in order though, since it has been stagnant for three years.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is not true. There is no such rule about the plot. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I don't know that IAR is necessary to invoke: this was a redirect for nearly three years—effectively, there was no article after the previous one was merged (and had been an overlong plot plus "differences" section, the latter of which is deprecated, before the merger). If it is, I'm happy to grant it explicitly, having already done so implicitly: there have been a number of articles that were redirects for far shorter times that have been allowed for DYK because of those significant periods of non-existence. Victuallers is incorrect about plot not counting toward prose length; the only rule about the plot section of a book (or other fictional work) is that it doesn't need inline source citations like the rest of the article. At over 2500 prose characters, this is plenty long, but it still needs a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't realised it was a redirect. Ignore my previous comment - seems fine in terms of eligibility.--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 22:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Appears to have been approved, but nobody has yet to award this a tick, so here it is. This has to be one of the better Goosebumps stories, after Slappy the Dummy and Horrorland. Geeky me. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, no one has approved it; the above just determined length eligibility. Still hoping for an actual reviewer to stop by and do a thorough review and mention which DYK requirements were reviewed (size, age, close paraphrasing, etc.). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Alright then, let me take the initiative to do so... Long enough, new enough at time of nomination, no copyright violations or plagiarism, enticing hook. All set. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)