Template:Did you know nominations/Mother (video game)

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) 20:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mother (video game)

(

)

... that Shigesato Itoi's first pitch for Mother ended in tears?

ALT1: ... that Shigeru Miyamoto made Shigesato Itoi cry before they started work on the 1989 video game Mother?
ALT2: ... that 1UP.com wrote that the 1989 video game Mother was historically significant for the interest it generated in video game emulation and the preservation of unreleased games?
ALT3: ... that the completed English localization of 1989 video game Mother was abandoned only to be rediscovered and later uploaded to the Internet?
Reviewed: Video gaming in Bangladesh

Improved to Good Article status by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 06:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Although the history is hard to discern (confused the heck out of DYK Check), length, cites and all the hooks and QPQ check out. Of the options I strongly prefer the first and alt 1, so I would recommend:

ALT4 ~~... that Shigeru Miyamoto's pitch for the 1989 video game Mother made Shigesato Itoi cry?~~

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this hook from the queue, as it is incorrect. I have explained this at WT:DYK#Mixing proposed hooks isn't always a good idea. Fram (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fram, to be clear, you're talking about ALT4, right? The original hooks should be fine czar ♔ 12:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Alt4, the one that was used, is not correct, so this is pulled and needs a new review. Fram (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Another fine example of people complaining about problems rather than fixing them. It would have taking you less time to fix and/or select another hook than it did for you write an entire section on the problem in another article. Sheesh. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, one person removing a hook, selecting another, and moving that to the queue directly. Why don't we get rid of this multiple layer review system completely? As long as we have a list of infallible people like me, nothing can go wrong! Please enlighten me, what has your complaint about "people complaining about problems rather than fixing them" actually fixed? If you hadn't proposed an incorrect hook and then checkmarked your own hook, we wouldn't be here. To then come and complain because you feel that someone else not only has to find your errors, but clean up after you as well, is seriously worrying. Next time, either propose a hook (preferably a correct one), or review someone elses hook critically. Or do neither, but don't do both the proposal and the review. Fram (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap, talk about adding fuel to the fire. Just propose a solution already! ALT3, go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)