Talk:Bit Managers
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Merge Bang! (arcade game) to Bit Managers
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was merged. --BDD (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
For the discussion of the suggested merger, please see Talk:Bang! (arcade game) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that Bang! (arcade game) be merged to Bit Managers
Bang!, as currently written, lacks notability; As the deprodder suggest that it is only inherited notability as the sole coinop by Bit Managers, I suggest that this article be merged into the developer's article, as it is a notable footnote in the history of Bit Managers, but not independently notable.
-- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have strong feelings either way, but the attempts to PROD or merge this article are actually coming in the middle of a proposed multi-page rename discussion (see the talk page section above). The rename discussion is hosted at this talk page and it can't be closed before the 25th and so a deletion or merge of this article would mean I'd have to file a request for page rename for a third time. If it's all the same with everyone else here I'd rather wait till the renaming discussion comes to an end. In the meantime, if anyone would be interested in commenting on that discussion then please do here (even if it's just to discuss the rename proposal for Aquarium (arcade game)). -Thibbs (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (updated link to proposed rename subsequent to merge discussion move. -Thibbs (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC))
- The RM has a 1 week deadline, as did the PROD, so it doesn't affect things either way, since the move should close before the PROD expires. As Merges don't have time limits, there's no limit to when this closes. And with a merger, the talk page remains, so the move discussion would still exist even if the page were merged away. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's too late now anyhow. I'm just regretting having gotten involved with these articles as they're proving extremely difficult to make compliant with the guidelines and I anticipate even more explanations and wrangling now that part of my request is about to be mooted. It was apparently very poor timing on my part. But that's really my problem and has nothing to do with the proposed merge. Good luck with it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I just noticed you'd PRODed the Aquarium (arcade game) article as well so perhaps all of my problems will vanish in the same puff of smoke. -Thibbs (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not all of them. "Bang!" is no longer up for deletion, so would still require someone to merge it away. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah but the rename aspect of it will disappear if there's a merge and that's been my only concern here. As far as the merge is concerned, it seems to make sense to me as long as no RSes can be found to cover the individual arcade game in sufficient depth. -Thibbs (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not all of them. "Bang!" is no longer up for deletion, so would still require someone to merge it away. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I just noticed you'd PRODed the Aquarium (arcade game) article as well so perhaps all of my problems will vanish in the same puff of smoke. -Thibbs (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's too late now anyhow. I'm just regretting having gotten involved with these articles as they're proving extremely difficult to make compliant with the guidelines and I anticipate even more explanations and wrangling now that part of my request is about to be mooted. It was apparently very poor timing on my part. But that's really my problem and has nothing to do with the proposed merge. Good luck with it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The RM has a 1 week deadline, as did the PROD, so it doesn't affect things either way, since the move should close before the PROD expires. As Merges don't have time limits, there's no limit to when this closes. And with a merger, the talk page remains, so the move discussion would still exist even if the page were merged away. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bit Managers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103130039/http://www.bitmanagers.com:80/ to http://www.bitmanagers.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)