- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Amador
- Nominated by: Cade Calrayn
14:53, March 22, 2013 (UTC) - Nomination comments: Project Hero presents Sergeant Rusk, the Badass: Part 4.
(3 ECs/1 Users/4 Total)
Support
- Do you mind submitting this to WP:AST? Stake black msg 16:45, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
501st dogma(talk) 20:32, March 24, 2013 (UTC)- Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 00:41, March 27, 2013 (UTC) - Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 22:07, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
Object
- Stake
Could you please reword the forth footnote? I did not understand it.- Should be better now.
What Chagrian soldier? Stake black msg 16:39, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi
Can anything be gleaned from the Atlas maps about the factions who controlled the area of space around Amador by using the system's grid coordinates?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 00:00, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't see the point. It has nothing to do with the planet, as it's speculation to say that the factions had any control over the planet or whether that relates to the planet. Also, Stake's recent nebula CA, which was a location, didn't need any information from the Atlas. It's also frowned upon in the GAN page. Cade Calrayn 00:07, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
- There seem to be a lot of past GAs that passed with the information included: Abbaji, Aaeton, Ab'Bshingh, Abo Dreth, Abrion Major, Berrun, Nigel VI, Sif-Uwana, and Seven Flames are some examples. I thought that including this information was how articles were supposed to be written. If this information should not included, then it seems like it should be absent from these articles as well.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 00:25, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
- When I say it's been frowned upon, I mean it's been frowned upon lately. I personally see no need for it, though I don't think it needs to be removed if it's already there—but it shouldn't be in future articles. Just because a region is affiliated with a faction doesn't mean the planet is. Cade Calrayn 00:29, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I didn't know things had changed so much.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 00:41, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I didn't know things had changed so much.--Exiled Jedi
- When I say it's been frowned upon, I mean it's been frowned upon lately. I personally see no need for it, though I don't think it needs to be removed if it's already there—but it shouldn't be in future articles. Just because a region is affiliated with a faction doesn't mean the planet is. Cade
- There seem to be a lot of past GAs that passed with the information included: Abbaji, Aaeton, Ab'Bshingh, Abo Dreth, Abrion Major, Berrun, Nigel VI, Sif-Uwana, and Seven Flames are some examples. I thought that including this information was how articles were supposed to be written. If this information should not included, then it seems like it should be absent from these articles as well.--Exiled Jedi
- Yes, but I don't see the point. It has nothing to do with the planet, as it's speculation to say that the factions had any control over the planet or whether that relates to the planet. Also, Stake's recent nebula CA, which was a location, didn't need any information from the Atlas. It's also frowned upon in the GAN page. Cade
Comments