Template:Did you know nominations/Boss Fight Books


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Boss Fight Books

 * ... that Ken Baumann's book on the SNES video game EarthBound was the first title published by Boss Fight Books?

Created by Hahnchen (talk). Self nominated at 01:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New (4th), long enough, "within policy", no copyvio found via spotcheck (no tool). QPQ needed and first paragraph needs citations since it isn't repeating something cited elsewhere (D2). Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ♔  21:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only facts that were not repeated/cited elsewhere should be covered by the Boss Fight Books about page. QPQ should not be necessary given my lack of DYK credits. - hahnch e n 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looked through my talk page archives and realised this was my 6th self-nom. Here's one I reviewed earlier - Template:Did you know nominations/Mycale laevis, Porites astreoides. - hahnch e n 21:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ done, all paragraphs cited. czar ♔  22:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this technically isn't long enough, as the prose is only 1100 characters. I will ask DYK talk on what to do in this situation, since it seems long enough.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it can be reformatted and qualify. Instead of titling the section "List of books", maybe just title it "The series". Take the books out of the table, and list them one-by-one with a star to the left, with the prose beneath each one . There probably should be a second opinion here besides mine, since I don't have experience at books. But it's worth a thought about saving this. — Maile  (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg If it seems long enough, can't we ignore the tool's shortcomings and simply acknowledge that it has passed the actual rule? That said, the current arrangement, with lots of empty space on either side of the table is not particularly appealing, so perhaps your suggestion, Maile, is the best course of action for the article as well as the DYK tool Furius (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the tool's shortcomings. As formatted, those books are a list, which is not counted as prose.  I'm saying re-format it so it is not a list, but in the style of prose according to what Wikipedia accepts as such. — Maile  (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , where is the consensus that text formatted in that way cannot be prose? Because it clearly operates as prose regardless of how it's formatted czar ♔  00:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my statement, as I think Belle knows better than I do about such matters. Cheers!, as some other editor on DYK says. — Maile (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ticking for the length and trusting czar has passed it on everything else: I think if everything else checks out the length is fine, as it is only the tool failing to discover the text in the list section and the list section isn't what would normally be thought of as a list for the purposes of discounting it. I don't think it is the most readable layout but nothing to disqualify it. Belle (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted at WT:DYK, this has been an issue before, even with prose in table fields. However, I've moved some prose from the table that more appropriately goes in the intro, and with 1712 prose characters, the article fulfills that DYK requirement. This article is an odd hybrid of article and list, and the list (a table) is like a bunch of mini-articles. The individual books probably aren't sufficiently notable on their own to be split off (and may never be), but the list of books may itself eventually be. It's early days yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)