- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Cabinet (Chiss)
- Nominated by: Goodmind (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
- Date Archived: 22:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Final word count: 206 words (0 introduction, 161 body, 45 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional): WP:CHISS
(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
(Votes required: 2 EC vote(s) required to reach minimum. Additional 3 user or 1 EC vote required to pass.)
Support
Object
Macaroni
What's the need for the double ref?JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 20:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)- The body is at 184 words by Jocasta's count, so sectioning and an introduction is required. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 05:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Reworded--Goodmind (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for chiming in, but deliberately shortening an article for the sake of a word limit is against the nomination rules on the CAN page.
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- That one is about 250-word limit, not about the 165 words-sectioning-required limit. It doesn't have enough sources to be this big. Description would have just doubled the length of the article since intro and description would have repeated the same information --Goodmind (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- You can see the same rule for other limits on FAN and GAN pages as well. They all are based on the same idea, not to shorten an article just to avoid a certain word limit. Even a subject with a single source may have enough content to require sectioning, and that "enough content" has been decided as having at least 165 words by the community. This, for example, is an article that only exceeds the limit by five words, much less than this article's unshortened version, and it still works with sectioning without getting too repetitive. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- You can see the same rule for other limits on FAN and GAN pages as well. They all are based on the same idea, not to shorten an article just to avoid a certain word limit. Even a subject with a single source may have enough content to require sectioning, and that "enough content" has been decided as having at least 165 words by the community. This, for example, is an article that only exceeds the limit by five words, much less than this article's unshortened version, and it still works with sectioning without getting too repetitive.
- That one is about 250-word limit, not about the 165 words-sectioning-required limit. It doesn't have enough sources to be this big. Description would have just doubled the length of the article since intro and description would have repeated the same information --Goodmind (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for chiming in, but deliberately shortening an article for the sake of a word limit is against the nomination rules on the CAN page.
- Reworded--Goodmind (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Anil
The real-life Gamer article is italicized in the article body but not in Sources and references. Could you please use the style in the actual magazine and keep it consistent in the Wook article? Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand, isn't every source italicized outside of a template? --Goodmind (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- In general, yes. But as you can see in most citation templates, and even in prose, when the cited work (such as a short story and a magazine article) is part of a larger work (such as an anthology book and magazine), the former is not italicized but rendered in between quotation marks unless the source uses a different format:
"Resistance Revisited" — Star Wars Insider 190 and "Reflection Day" — Life Day Treasury, for example. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- In general, yes. But as you can see in most citation templates, and even in prose, when the cited work (such as a short story and a magazine article) is part of a larger work (such as an anthology book and magazine), the former is not italicized but rendered in between quotation marks unless the source uses a different format:
- I'm not sure I understand, isn't every source italicized outside of a template? --Goodmind (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
AC
For clarity, you may wanna rearrange your second paragraph. Something along the lines of: "Details on the Cabinet were described in X book, published by X person and published on X date."AmazinglyCool (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it would work with The University of Sanbra Guide to Intelligent Life specifically since it's kinda up in the air how it was published --Goodmind (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair AmazinglyCool (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair AmazinglyCool
- I don't think it would work with The University of Sanbra Guide to Intelligent Life specifically since it's kinda up in the air how it was published --Goodmind (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
