Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Attack on Mindor

< Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Attack on Mindor

  • Nominated by: Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 03:53, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: That's it for now, I think.

(2 ECs/2 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. ECvote As long as you kill the redlinks... 501st dogma(talk) 22:00, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Winterz (talk) 17:20, January 25, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Supreme Emperor (talk) 04:18, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  4. ECvote Menkooroo (talk) 04:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Object

  1. Winterz
    • I believe Fideltin Rusk's family became notable enough for an article.
      • Done.
    • Why is there no mention of the Cold War in the body? Also, remember to contextualize it.
      • Done.
    • You must add the Cold War template. Winterz (talk) 13:55, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 18:25, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
        • So many redlinks on the template..I believe you need to kill them. (eheh and through this sort of objections, Cade ends up writing the entire conflict by himself) Winterz (talk) 23:38, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Since you've slotted this into the Cold War template, should the previous and next fields of the infobox be filled out? Menkooroo (talk) 01:53, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
    • Not in my opinion, as they're completely unrelated. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 01:57, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
      • That's par for the course, though --- it's why they don't need to be included in the article body. See here: "All infobox material must be detailed in the article proper, with the following exceptions: ... The "prev," "conc," and "next" fields of event infoboxes, which are not necessarily relevant to the article." If they're part of the same conflict, that's what prev, conc, and next are for, regardless of relevance. Menkooroo (talk) 02:06, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Comments