Template:Did you know nominations/Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn


 * 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 PFHLai (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn, Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch

 * ... that Japanese animation film company Studio Ghibli produced the animated sequences for the video games Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn and Wrath of the White Witch?


 * ALT1:... that Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch is an enhanced version of Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn, featuring significantly different artwork, graphics and specifications?
 * ALT2:... that Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch was developed for the PlayStation 3, which allowed for advanced rendering not possible in Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn?
 * Reviewed: Untitled Cullen brothers film, Avalanche Studios

Converted from a redirect by Rhain1999 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Articles is recently converted from redirects, and is new enough, easily long enough, and neutral. The hook is interesting, long enough, and supported by reliable sources. Personally prefer ALT1 and ALT2 (never heard of Dominion of the Dark Djinn before actually). QPQ done. Well done. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * AdrianGamer, since you were the person who reviewed this at GA, you're unfortunately not eligible to review it here per WP:DYKSG: You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article, nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed Good Article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK). Later addition: I hadn't realized that your GA review was subsequent to your review here. However, there was a major issue with your review (regarding split/spun-off articles; see below), and now that you have done the GA review, which is the reason White Witch can qualify for DYK, you cannot continue the DYK review. 03:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhain1999, I'm confused about where the articles came from. The edit summary that created Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch with 83,944 bytes says "Splitting from DS version." This is not at all clear to many readers such as myself, and the Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn's creation summary of "Splitting from PS3 version." is similarly opaque. Such edit summaries should always contain a link to the actual originated article; I think that the material for White Witch came from the main Ni no Kuni article, and I'm guessing for Dark Djinn as well, but is that the only source for imported material? I'd like to suggest placing a clear template to that effect on both article talk pages. It looks like the Wikipedia plot summary for White Witch was copied onto at least one YouTube video page, but since it dates from July 2013 and the White Witch article was seemingly started in August 2015, without that clear origin it looks like Wikipedia did the copying when it was (upon further investigation) definitely vice versa. See WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions on how to fix this copyright problem, especially in its WP:RIA section, which will probably involve using the "Copied" template on both new and originating articles' talk pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by new, independent reviewer. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note for reviewer: both articles were split off from an earlier article, and as such any material copied from that article does not count as new, and further (per WP:DYKSG) must be 5x expanded. Because White Witch was subsequently made a GA, that supersedes any expansion requirement—looking at it now, it clearly didn't qualify as a 5x expansion prior to the GA listing—but for Dark Djinn, it still holds. Be sure to check what was copied against the current size of that article. (Of course, if Dark Djinn should be listed as a GA—it was nominated on October 10, but a review has not yet begun—it becomes eligible for DYK on that basis regardless of expansion.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, . A lot of the information from the Wrath of the White Witch article originated from the Ni no Kuni (you can find it here). If you don't understand much about the games, it's a bit complicated to explain: the PS3 version of the game (Wrath of the White Witch) is very similar to the DS version (Dominion of the Dark Djinn) story-wise, but almost everything else (graphics, gameplay, etc.) is different. I think editors just decided to write about the games as one article, and nobody decided to split the articles (until I came along), even though it was discussed on the talk page. Most of the information from Wrath of the White Witch is my own original text (I adapted the Gameplay section, and edited the Plot, but everything else is original), while almost all of the information from Dominion of the Dark Djinn is original. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 03:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Although Wrath of the White Witch qualifies for DYK as a newly-promoted GA, I do not believe Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn qualifies as its text is little changed from the article from which it was split. I suggest this nomination be reduced to a single article with an appropriate hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind everyone that if the WP:COPYWITHIN issues are not fixed, neither article will be eligible for promotion at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added split to templates to both article talk pages. Also, it should be mentioned that Dominion of the Dark Djinn now also qualifies for DYK as a newly-promoted GA. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 09:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, the nomination can go ahead with both articles included, on the basis that they are both newly-promoted GAs. I will review them fully if BlueMoonset agrees with this view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwmhiraeth, I do agree: the articles now satisfy WP:COPYWITHIN, and the former expansion requirements are now irrelevant with both articles having been promoted to GA subsequent to being nominated here. The fact that they have become GAs is sufficient. Thanks for taking on the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg These two articles are newly-promoted GAs and are recent enough and long enough. Going for the original hook as the inline citations for ALT1 and ALT2 don't work for me. The articles are neutral and I did not find any copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)