- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Contents
Unidentified B1 battle droid captain (Dooku's frigate)[]
- Nominated by: Kreivi Wolter 18:36, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Star Wars: The Droid Wars continues
(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)[]
Support[]
- —Tommy 9281 Saturday, April 9, 2011, 17:12 UTC
- Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:22, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
- The intro is a bit too long to my liking, but I guess it's just the matter of preference, and I don't want to make an objection out of it. QuiGonJinn (Talk) 09:38, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 19:43, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Kilson(Let's have a chat) 20:29, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Object[]
Graestan[]
The first sentence of the intro basically says the same thing twice; please reword it and pare it down to one statement like in the biography section. Graestan(Talk) 19:42, March 19, 2011 (UTC)- Try it now. Kreivi Wolter 20:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, in the BtS calling something an "online comic" in the "webcomic" is redundant. Graestan(Talk) 19:42, March 19, 2011 (UTC)- Try it now. Kreivi Wolter 20:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
I'd throw Pablo and Grant a bone in the BtS as well.Graestan(Talk) 19:42, March 19, 2011 (UTC)- I wouldn't. Kreivi Wolter 20:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's lost on you because we are of different native dialects, but you're not coming across very politely here. I can add it if you would please; there is a huge precedent of many good articles that have similar BtS mentions. Graestan(Talk) 00:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- If I appeared rude, I apologize. But mentioning the writers etc. of the comic in articles like this is possible, but not necessary. There are many other GAs which does mention them, yes, but then there's many other GAs that doesn't mention them. This is because it depends on the user, and I've chose not to mention them. Kreivi Wolter 08:56, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Objection(s) overridden by AgriCorps 16:17, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
- If I appeared rude, I apologize. But mentioning the writers etc. of the comic in articles like this is possible, but not necessary. There are many other GAs which does mention them, yes, but then there's many other GAs that doesn't mention them. This is because it depends on the user, and I've chose not to mention them. Kreivi Wolter 08:56, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's lost on you because we are of different native dialects, but you're not coming across very politely here. I can add it if you would please; there is a huge precedent of many good articles that have similar BtS mentions. Graestan(Talk) 00:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't. Kreivi Wolter 20:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
Are we certain the droid held the rank of captain? Perhaps he was not simply referred to as "captain" because he was the master of the ship? Graestan(Talk) 19:42, March 19, 2011 (UTC)- Bah, whaeva... Kreivi Wolter 20:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Without proof, such as rank insignia or his being addressed in a capitalized fashion in dialogue, we must assume it is just as the commander of the ship. Graestan(Talk) 00:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Roger roger. Kreivi Wolter 08:56, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Without proof, such as rank insignia or his being addressed in a capitalized fashion in dialogue, we must assume it is just as the commander of the ship. Graestan(Talk) 00:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Bah, whaeva... Kreivi Wolter 20:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
"Captain" need not be capitalized throughout the article in any case, per our and standard English usage rules. Graestan(Talk) 19:42, March 19, 2011 (UTC)- Wrong. In some cases, it must be. Kreivi Wolter 20:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
- No, I believe you are wrong. If the droid is not established as a captain in terms of rank, it would be like saying (in regards to Dexter Jettster): "The Cook made some stew." How ridiculous does that sound? Graestan(Talk) 00:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- That... seems logical. Done. Kreivi Wolter 08:56, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- No, I believe you are wrong. If the droid is not established as a captain in terms of rank, it would be like saying (in regards to Dexter Jettster): "The Cook made some stew." How ridiculous does that sound? Graestan(Talk) 00:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong. In some cases, it must be. Kreivi Wolter 20:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
Jujiggum[]
"…as would be expected aboard the personal ship for the leader of the Confederacy." Does the comic say that this would be expected, or is this your own inference?- Changed. Kreivi Wolter 16:28, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
You have some infobox-exclusive information right now.Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:49, March 27, 2011 (UTC)- Is is necessary to add every little detail to the article? I dont see anything new on the box that should be repeated. Which did you have in mind? Kreivi Wolter 16:28, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is necessary. For one, we've never allowed infobox-exlusive information. Also, since droids are part technologolical item, it's important to add things such as their size and series in the characteristics section, just as you would for a ship or weapon; and since they're part character, you should also have things such as "sensor color" and "masculine programming," etc. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:08, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Never? Actually, we have. Many times. Plus, unless there is a source that states "all B1 battle droids were programmed with masculine personality", we dont know for 100% sure if the droid's programming is masculine. Kreivi Wolter 08:20, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Random butt-in: Just because it has slipped in the past, doesn't mean it should be accepted now. 1358 (Talk) 12:18, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- But we are engouraged to take examples from articles already GA or FA, aren't we not? Kreivi Wolter 14:05, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- First off, yes we are, but I can assure you that every single article you've just brought up will be put on the next AC meeting agenda. To reiterate what Xd just said: just because mistakes have slipped through in the past does not mean they should be allowed now. The fact that those droid articles have mistakes in them does not make it okay to make more mistakes. Secondly, I was using the "masculine programming" simply as an example; I was not suggesting that you needed to add it to the article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:36, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Now we are talking. Will you bring this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, and potentially many others too on that meeting? Kreivi Wolter 15:34, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- BOOM! Thanks for pointing all those out. I'll bring those FAs up on the next Inq meeting page, too. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:45, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to reinforce what these guys are telling you too, Kreivi. Just because something exists in any article on this wiki does not necessarily mean that Wookieepedia stands behind it 100%. The quality of our articles are continually improving. Just because you find an FA or GA in a certain shape does not mean that is the eternal standard to live by. Take a look at those articles, and you'll see that many were passed almost two full years ago. Our standards change over time. Do your best to take every objection from reviewers in good faith and try to respond in kind. Our articles will only benefit because of it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:55, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I think I'll wait to see what will be decided in that meeting before making any changes to this article. Kreivi Wolter 12:21, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Instead of keep trying to prove a point, I suggest you add those small facts to the article and be done with it. 1358 (Talk) 12:29, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't read this ridiculous debate, but I suspect the objection could be satisfied by adding something as simple as "The droid, like all others of its model, stood 1.91 meters in height" to the Characteristics section. You could have resolved the objection in the time you've wasted arguing about this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:07, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
- By the will of the AC. Done. (I still believe tis ridiculous.) Kreivi Wolter 14:58, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't read this ridiculous debate, but I suspect the objection could be satisfied by adding something as simple as "The droid, like all others of its model, stood 1.91 meters in height" to the Characteristics section. You could have resolved the objection in the time you've wasted arguing about this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:07, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Instead of keep trying to prove a point, I suggest you add those small facts to the article and be done with it. 1358 (Talk) 12:29, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I think I'll wait to see what will be decided in that meeting before making any changes to this article. Kreivi Wolter 12:21, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to reinforce what these guys are telling you too, Kreivi. Just because something exists in any article on this wiki does not necessarily mean that Wookieepedia stands behind it 100%. The quality of our articles are continually improving. Just because you find an FA or GA in a certain shape does not mean that is the eternal standard to live by. Take a look at those articles, and you'll see that many were passed almost two full years ago. Our standards change over time. Do your best to take every objection from reviewers in good faith and try to respond in kind. Our articles will only benefit because of it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:55, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- BOOM! Thanks for pointing all those out. I'll bring those FAs up on the next Inq meeting page, too. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:45, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Now we are talking. Will you bring this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, and potentially many others too on that meeting? Kreivi Wolter 15:34, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- First off, yes we are, but I can assure you that every single article you've just brought up will be put on the next AC meeting agenda. To reiterate what Xd just said: just because mistakes have slipped through in the past does not mean they should be allowed now. The fact that those droid articles have mistakes in them does not make it okay to make more mistakes. Secondly, I was using the "masculine programming" simply as an example; I was not suggesting that you needed to add it to the article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:36, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- But we are engouraged to take examples from articles already GA or FA, aren't we not? Kreivi Wolter 14:05, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Random butt-in: Just because it has slipped in the past, doesn't mean it should be accepted now. 1358 (Talk) 12:18, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Never? Actually, we have. Many times. Plus, unless there is a source that states "all B1 battle droids were programmed with masculine personality", we dont know for 100% sure if the droid's programming is masculine. Kreivi Wolter 08:20, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is necessary. For one, we've never allowed infobox-exlusive information. Also, since droids are part technologolical item, it's important to add things such as their size and series in the characteristics section, just as you would for a ship or weapon; and since they're part character, you should also have things such as "sensor color" and "masculine programming," etc. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:08, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Is is necessary to add every little detail to the article? I dont see anything new on the box that should be repeated. Which did you have in mind? Kreivi Wolter 16:28, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Toprawa[]
Contrary to a previous objection made, I believe it is safe to make the straightforward assumption that this character be considered to have the formal Captain rank. He is serving aboard a CIS military starship in a droid command hierarchy, after all.- Sure thing. Kreivi Wolter 21:03, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
The intro and the body currently each have a different system for linking each subject in this sentence. I'm not really too concerned with which way you choose, as long as it's kept consistent throughout the article. Intro: "...Count Dooku's personal Munificent-class star frigate"; Body: "the personal Munificent-class star frigate of Count Dooku".Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:38, April 19, 2011 (UTC)- Might as well change it. Done. Kreivi Wolter 21:03, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Comments[]
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 20:29, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Uh, may I ask this wont be removed till tomorrow? I know this is a higly unproper way to handle this, but I will make the change when that AC meeting has been held. If this nomination is now removed, I will just make another one on saturday. Kreivi Wolter 17:21, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
Vote to remove nomination (AC only)[]
- Unaddressed objection for over 2 weeks. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:40, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh.—Tommy 9281 Friday, April 15, 2011, 03:05 UTC