- The following 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
CTF 2187
- ... that the play-by-mail game CTF 2187 about futuristic battling robots had multiple works of fiction written about it? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20020523052905/http://www.ageforfun.com/ (multiple Shannon Muir references in list)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Evelyn Straus
- Comment:
QPQ pending
Created by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC).
Article is new and long enough. I notice there is some close paraphrasing from this source, such as the sentence starting "You assume the role of a mercenary pilot in command of a huge robotic war machine know[n] as a Battle Bot...." I don't think the hook jumps out as being particularly attention-grabbing; lots of things have works of fiction written about them. Also a QPQ is required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Ritchie333. The sentence you mention is a blockquote. It closely matches the source you mentioned, but both the blockquote source and the source you mentioned are the same, the publisher. I imagine they used generally the same material in different places. Other than say, Dungeons and Dragons, I wasn't aware of many other games with works of fiction about them. However, if it simply doesn't seem interesting, I'll look for another hook. Airborne84 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that that the play-by-mail game CTF 2187 about futuristic battling robots had secret societies and in-game romances? Source: Robert R. Woodard, "CTF 2187: Fighting Fire with Fire," Paper Mayhem, Mar/Apr 1997, No. 83. p. 24.
- Ritchie333 The QPQ is complete and a new ALT provided. Please advise. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, in that case we're good to go. AGF because of the offline source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I should probably just ask this now because of the discussion now finished at Template:Did you know nominations/Midgard (game) regarding WP:DYKSG#C6. Theleekycauldron and Narutolovehinata5 (or Ritchie333), do you think the "in-game romances" part of this hook is problematic or needs adjusting? The source said "in game romances", and I'm guessing that meant people either play-acted their pilots as having romances in the game, or actually had romances from the game, or perhaps there wasn't a difference. I don't know if that runs afoul of the in-game criterion discussed at the other nomination and this part of the hook will end up needing to be removed, or perhaps it should just be reworded to "player romances" or it's fine left as-is. Thoughts? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I feel that ALT1 falls afoul of the in-universe criterion. I'm not really that much of a fan of the original hook: perhaps a hook about its development or reception would work out better? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I'll look around some more. Might take a bit. Recommend changing the button back to "maybe" in the meantime. Appreciate the input. Airborne84 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I feel that ALT1 falls afoul of the in-universe criterion. I'm not really that much of a fan of the original hook: perhaps a hook about its development or reception would work out better? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I should probably just ask this now because of the discussion now finished at Template:Did you know nominations/Midgard (game) regarding WP:DYKSG#C6. Theleekycauldron and Narutolovehinata5 (or Ritchie333), do you think the "in-game romances" part of this hook is problematic or needs adjusting? The source said "in game romances", and I'm guessing that meant people either play-acted their pilots as having romances in the game, or actually had romances from the game, or perhaps there wasn't a difference. I don't know if that runs afoul of the in-game criterion discussed at the other nomination and this part of the hook will end up needing to be removed, or perhaps it should just be reworded to "player romances" or it's fine left as-is. Thoughts? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 The QPQ is complete and a new ALT provided. Please advise. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that that the play-by-mail game CTF 2187 about futuristic battling robots had secret societies and in-game romances? Source: Robert R. Woodard, "CTF 2187: Fighting Fire with Fire," Paper Mayhem, Mar/Apr 1997, No. 83. p. 24.
- Thanks for the review Ritchie333. The sentence you mention is a blockquote. It closely matches the source you mentioned, but both the blockquote source and the source you mentioned are the same, the publisher. I imagine they used generally the same material in different places. Other than say, Dungeons and Dragons, I wasn't aware of many other games with works of fiction about them. However, if it simply doesn't seem interesting, I'll look for another hook. Airborne84 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, let's wait for a new hook in the meantime. Courtesy ping to Ritchie333. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. It's round about now I summon Captain Hooky to see what they can muster up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that the attractions of CTF 2187 included "the fog of war [and] polite insults in the newsletter"? EEng 12:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. The article has a citation to Penrod, but there's no Penrod in the sources list.
- It is there, just the citation is done by plain text, not templates. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2 is actually pretty good, IMO. BTW, the Penrod source was in the Further reading section and the reflink was a digit off so it didn't link right. I moved it to the Bibliography and corrected the reflink so it links properly. Much appreciated! Airborne84 (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is there, just the citation is done by plain text, not templates. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that the attractions of CTF 2187 included "the fog of war [and] polite insults in the newsletter"? EEng 12:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. The article has a citation to Penrod, but there's no Penrod in the sources list.
- Okay. It's round about now I summon Captain Hooky to see what they can muster up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)