Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Battle of Lanos

< 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.

Battle of Lanos

(2 ECs/1 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. Random Article on the CAN. Just doing my part. :P By the by, is Wild Space any good? Miller is great, but TCW in any form carries a stigma to me. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 21:58, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ECvote The infobox exclusivity bothers me. This can be handled with some deft wording. But I seem to be in the minority, so... ~SavageBOB sig 15:28, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
  3. ECvotePer Bob.--Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 22:46, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Object

  1. All those battles are infobox exclusive. ...Good luck with that. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 04:41, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at my answer to Cal above. And yes, Wild Space is good enough to deserve a read. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:41, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
      • Infobox-exclusivity is infobox-exclusivity. Furthermore, I clicked Mission to Barab I and it seems that your cuncurrent events aren't listed consistently. Mission to Barab I says that the Battle of Falleen and Battle of Bothawui were cuncurrent with it, but that would mean they were also cuncurrent with the Battle of Lanos. If I gather these articles correctly, they were mentioned at some Jeci Council meeting. If so, I have an idea for how to get the articles in the body. Mention the meeting and say it was reported alongside all the concurrent events. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:36, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
        • Adressed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:03, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry to pop in and wiki-lawyer. :/ I'm not too experienced with Battle articles, but I recently got three of them to GA status, and the "previous" and "next" battles from the infobox being infobox-exclusive was never a problem. I think they might be an exception to the rule, as they usually have nothing to do with the article's subject. Menkooroo 12:26, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
            • Conscious of the fact that I'm not terribly experienced with Event articles, I've asked CC and Jon, both of whom are, to weigh in. This seems to be an issue that would affect all future (and past) Event articles, so let's all work it together. Cheers, everyone. :D Menkooroo 12:36, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
              • Hey guys, Menk is correct, for exactly the right reason. While we typically strive to include all information in the infobox, that's because that information is directly related to the article's content. Since past, present, and future battles often have absolutely nothing to do with the subject battle, their addition to the article body is often unnecessary. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
                • Same as above. Remember to look at relevance first—that's definitely not the case for this battle—and infobox-exclusivity second. CC7567 (talk) 18:22, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
                  • Alrighty then. Reverted to before I said anything. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 03:38, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comments