Requested move 13 November 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 18:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]



– I Propose we move Woody (Toy Story) to Woody, and the disambiguation page Woody be changed to Woody (disambiguation) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Woody (Toy Story) monthly page view is 18,229. While Woody the disambiguation page get a monthly view of 572. Woody plant gets 4,163 monthly views. Woodland gets 7,630. SunTrap get 349 monthly views. Woody (singer) only gets 272. Woody (name) only gets 721. DJ Woody gets 187. Woody, Texas barely gets 192 monthly views. Woody, California. The only thing I see getting more views is Wood at 29,956 monthly views, but no one calls wood, when talking about its name, Woody they call it wood. Note all I did was look at the monthly average of all the articles that came from the woody disambiguation page so there could be some things I didn't see. This is where I got my info from. Kaleeb18 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk04:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article was not 5x expanded; indeed, it shrank during the recent editing. If the article should ever be listed as a Good Article, it can be nominated within seven days of passing.

5x expanded by Kaleeb18 (talk) and VladimirBoys (talk). Nominated by Kaleeb18 (talk) at 14:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Kaleeb18, unfortunately I do not think this article is eligible for DYK. You'd need to have expanded the text content by 5x in length, which I am not seeing in the page history. You'll also need to resolve the many tags for additional citations and expansion in the article. Your best bet would be to get it to good article status and renominate then. See the DYK rules for more details. PS: I removed the image from this nomination, fair use (ie. copyrighted) images are permitted in articles only - Dumelow (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fine if it can't be nominated and thanks for the suggestion. I'm also wondering what 5x or five fold means like how do I know if an article has been expanded 5 fold. Kaleeb18 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kaleeb18, no worries and good luck with the article. The expansion is based on the number of characters (ie. letters, spaces etc.) in the article before you started work on it and the number after you've finished. You can use a script like Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck but I just copy the article text into an online character counter (there's loads of websites if you do a Google search for "character counter" or similar) - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, thanks again. Kaleeb18 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a handy Prosesize gadget that you can install from your Wikipedia preferences. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 23:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh: is there an article describing hiw that gadget works or what it does? Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A week before nomination, the page was 26257 characters. Now it is 15914, so it has shrunk. You would have to get to about 132000 characters to pass the 5x, so not really feasible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: yeah I forgot we removed a setion called relationships, which talked about Woody's relationship with everyone in the movie, was completely unnecessary and we got rid of 16,000 bytes by getting rid of that section. Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: Yes – the Prosesize link I gave earlier. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 05:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Woody (Toy Story)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 05:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one on. I've only watched Toy Story and Toy Story 4 (well, I watched Toy Story 3 but forgot what happens) so apologies for any plot-related mistakes. Expect some comments by Sunday. Will try not to screw this up Pamzeis (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis Thank you, Ive touched up the lead section based off what youve said so what do you think? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Version reviewed

Prose

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Development

[edit]

Characteristics

[edit]

Appearances

[edit]

Reception and legacy

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Reliability

[edit]

More to come...

Verifiability

[edit]

Other

[edit]

Apologies, but due to my schedule I will not be able to complete the review until next week or later. Pamzeis (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Second look

[edit]

More to come... sorry for the delay. Pamzeis (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Third look

[edit]

We're getting really close! Pamzeis (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Alright, I have done everything from the third look. Glad we are almost done! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Fourth look

[edit]

Mostly trivial; really, really close. I'm honestly going a bit mad from reading the article so many times. I need to read it... at least one more time Pamzeis (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I'm so bad with grammar sometimes. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 03:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there still any issues? 2001:4455:364:A800:CD09:1137:D247:C321 (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is giving a fifth look and will come out wit a review soonish. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Fifth look

[edit]

After five loooooooooooong looks, I think we're all good! Sorry for letting this drag on so long, been kinda stressed lately... We. Made. It. Pamzeis (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Yay! Glad it’s finally a GA and no problem I did not mind waiting at all. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Trey Allen

[edit]

Allen 162.0.192.126 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm what does this mean? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 14:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last name "Pride".

[edit]

Woody's last name is "Pride", right? So, why make "Woody Pride" a redirect to Woody (Toy Story)??!! FlapjackRulez (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

She Slink on my Woody 'til I Buzz 68.50.158.125 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]