- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Abregado-fus
(2 ECs/0 Users/1 Total)
Support
501st dogma(talk) 11:41, October 6, 2012 (UTC)- Sorry to take so long on this. Busy times. ~Savage
03:40, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
Object
- Savaged…
With this and the other planet noms below, you should be able to tell a bit more about the planet's place in galactic history by going through the maps in both The Essential Atlas and The Essential Guide to Warfare. You should be able to tell what regions of the galaxy it was in (the Slice, etc.), what territories it fell within during various periods, when its general vicinity was known to the galaxy at large, etc. You might be able to steal a bunch of this info from the Gados article. ~Savage
18:59, October 20, 2012 (UTC)- You know, that always made me wonder. If the planet or system's name don't appear in the map, wouldn't it be speculating claiming they fell under X's territory? :s Winterz (talk) 18:53, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. It's not speculation to say it fell within a territory. It'd be speculation to say that it was allied with such and such a political body or empire without appearing on the map though. But we can assume that if a planet is in, say, grid I-2, and I-2 is part of Darth Krayt's Empire, then the planets in I-2 physically were located in that territory. That's exactly the kind of contextual information Fry and Wallace were going for when they created the Atlas. ~Savage 17:34, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
- You know, that always made me wonder. If the planet or system's name don't appear in the map, wouldn't it be speculating claiming they fell under X's territory? :s Winterz (talk) 18:53, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Though I'm supporting, I don't think you can call its primary terrain "gas gaint". 501st dogma(talk) 11:41, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah that kept me wondering for a while too. However I back checked major gas giant articles like Endor (planet) and Bespin, and they all say in terrain "Gas giant", I guess that serves to explain that there isn't any solid terrain, just gases. Winterz (talk) 11:56, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Don't concentrate on keeping the word count down. I used to do that, but you can really limit yourself and it really won't end up as comprehensive as it should be for a CA. If it goes over the word limit for CA nomination, then it can qualify for GA nomination. —GethralkinHyperwave 12:35, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm that's not exactly my intention, Gethralkin. However, even with proper context, these articles will not reach the 250 words. Also it's better to keep it CAN as all my GAN slots are occupied right now. Winterz (talk) 13:43, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there are some who challenge the 250 word count as a hard limit because it is really a bench mark with a range prompting nomination supporters to review—if the article reaches over 200—if the nomination can be lengthened to 250 or more and if not, why not?[1][2] The idea is that if you come close, then more could possibly be added to reach GA status. Regardless, I understand if any of the articles don't have enough info to bring it up to that, but trying to pare any of them down to force a CA (as was suggested by Savage's comment above) is frowned upon. What's best for the article is more important than what's best for the editor in the eyes of the EduCorp. Still, if it can't even be brought between 200 to 250 words, then you shouldn't worry too much, but don't let the load of articles you are working on dictate the quality of status articles you are nominating. —GethralkinHyperwave 14:07, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing things. Never did I showed any sign of not wanting to expand to its max quality. In fact, I complied with what Savage asked but as I forgot to add the dates as well, he assumed I was trying to keep it short. And now you're using his assumption as something that I've said, which is incorrect because I didn't. duh Gethralkin ;) Winterz (talk) 15:23, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, well sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't get to get on here very much anymore, and I only took what was posted at face value. I hope I didn't offend, I was just expressing the problem I ran into when I initially began posting CANs. —GethralkinHyperwave 16:53, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing things. Never did I showed any sign of not wanting to expand to its max quality. In fact, I complied with what Savage asked but as I forgot to add the dates as well, he assumed I was trying to keep it short. And now you're using his assumption as something that I've said, which is incorrect because I didn't. duh Gethralkin ;) Winterz (talk) 15:23, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there are some who challenge the 250 word count as a hard limit because it is really a bench mark with a range prompting nomination supporters to review—if the article reaches over 200—if the nomination can be lengthened to 250 or more and if not, why not?[1][2] The idea is that if you come close, then more could possibly be added to reach GA status. Regardless, I understand if any of the articles don't have enough info to bring it up to that, but trying to pare any of them down to force a CA (as was suggested by Savage's comment above) is frowned upon. What's best for the article is more important than what's best for the editor in the eyes of the EduCorp. Still, if it can't even be brought between 200 to 250 words, then you shouldn't worry too much, but don't let the load of articles you are working on dictate the quality of status articles you are nominating. —GethralkinHyperwave 14:07, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm that's not exactly my intention, Gethralkin. However, even with proper context, these articles will not reach the 250 words. Also it's better to keep it CAN as all my GAN slots are occupied right now. Winterz (talk) 13:43, October 30, 2012 (UTC)