Talk:Pokémon Platinum Version/Featured article candidate: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Latest comment: 21 February 2010 by TTEchidna in topic Pokémon Platinum Version
m →Other comments: only votes in the proper sections count, so im removing these. |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*A great article. Lots of information and describes the changes from DP very well. [[User:Turtwig A|Turt]][[wig]] [[Turtwig (Pokémon)|A]] ([[User talk:Turtwig A|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Turtwig A|contribs]]) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | *A great article. Lots of information and describes the changes from DP very well. [[User:Turtwig A|Turt]][[wig]] [[Turtwig (Pokémon)|A]] ([[User talk:Turtwig A|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Turtwig A|contribs]]) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
====Object ( | ====Object (10)==== | ||
<!--Please remember to update the count along with your vote.--> | <!--Please remember to update the count along with your vote.--> | ||
* I say its just as good as emerald, crystal, ect. either do all or nothing I say! (preferably nothing). | |||
*What makes this one so much more special than the other sister games? I feel that users have been getting FAC making happy, and we don't need such low level choices like this one clogging up the featured articles. ''[[User:Maverick Nate|<sup style="color:#00008B;">'''Maverick'''</sup>]][[User talk:Maverick Nate|<sub style="color:#00008B;">'''Nate'''</sub>]]'' 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | *What makes this one so much more special than the other sister games? I feel that users have been getting FAC making happy, and we don't need such low level choices like this one clogging up the featured articles. ''[[User:Maverick Nate|<sup style="color:#00008B;">'''Maverick'''</sup>]][[User talk:Maverick Nate|<sub style="color:#00008B;">'''Nate'''</sub>]]'' 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
*It's just a big old list, like all the other game articles. I don't think it's *that* great... ▫▪''[[User:Tina|<span style="color:#d93f91;">Ťïňắ</span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Tina|<span style="color:#ae41d9;">♫</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Tina|<span style="color:#d941cf;">♥</span>]]</sup> 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | *It's just a big old list, like all the other game articles. I don't think it's *that* great... ▫▪''[[User:Tina|<span style="color:#d93f91;">Ťïňắ</span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Tina|<span style="color:#ae41d9;">♫</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Tina|<span style="color:#d941cf;">♥</span>]]</sup> 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:09, 23 February 2010
Support (1)
- A great article. Lots of information and describes the changes from DP very well. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Object (10)
- I say its just as good as emerald, crystal, ect. either do all or nothing I say! (preferably nothing).
- What makes this one so much more special than the other sister games? I feel that users have been getting FAC making happy, and we don't need such low level choices like this one clogging up the featured articles. MaverickNate 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's just a big old list, like all the other game articles. I don't think it's *that* great... ▫▪Ťïňắ ♫♥ 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's a good article, but like Mav said, users are too obssesed with making FACs (but then again, so am I), and this doesn't really stand out compared to other game articles. CuboneKing 02:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Tina. It just lists the changes from Diamond and Pearl, and though the article isn't bad, it just doesn't stand out enough. --rockersk08 02:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- DP is a better choice than this page, and it even has less info. Because this page is what's been said: a long list of changes from DP. R.A. Hunter Blade 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with all of the above. - Pokémon1234567890 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- If it wins, it would have to be more in-depth, but it's not, so I'm voting for no.--FlyingSkymin23 12:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the article is a list of changes from DP. The next largest section is Trivia (which is not encouraged anyway), and then the intro.--Snorlax<spanstyle="color:#0000A7">Monster 11:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. To make Platinum a featured article and not make D/P a featured article would be disrespectful to the classic two, and make them look inferior. Diamond and Pearl are good games. Why does everybody hate them now? Dusknoir477 09:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Scratch this vote. It has nothing to do with the article. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- DP are inferior to Pt, anyway. That's like saying GS are better than C. TTEchidna 20:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Scratch this vote. It has nothing to do with the article. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Other comments
I'm not sure either way. All i can say is it is a good article. Perhaps we should have a "Good Article" thingy as well as the "Featured Article" thing. Coz then we can have catagorys for these "OK" articles. who agrees? SpecialK Leiks Lucario and The Celebi Glitch 11:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why would we vote about this... on Platinum's talk page? Why would we vote over it in the first place? Why is it a good idea anyway? D8 Technically anything that's not marked with any incomplete/stub/cleanup tags is considered good... ▫▪Ťïňắ ♫♥ 01:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
