Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Kaylah Taprish

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

Kaylah Taprish

• Nominated by: Cade Calrayn 21:44, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: The Codex Project.

(3 ECs/0 Users/3 Total)

Support

1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 00:42, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
2. 501st dogma^(talk) 01:09, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
3. Supreme Emperor (talk) 15:05, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead

• What in the Codex suggests she lived over one hundred years after the Mandalorian Wars? There doesn't seem to be any timeframe given from what I can see. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:22, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
  • ... the very first sentence? The one that says the vrake were on the verge of extinction for more than a hundred years? Makeb was settled during the Mandalorian Wars; ergo, more than hundred years after the Mandalorian Wars. Cade Calrayn 23:28, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
    • That sentence in no way implies that the period of near-extinction began during the Mandalorian Wars. They could of been near-extinction prior to the planet's settlement, as it's entirely possible for animals to go extinct without sentient input. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:33, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
      • Then how would they know that the vrake was near-extinct? No sentient being was on Makeb until the Mandalorian Wars. Cade Calrayn 23:35, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
        • Could be from fossil samples, or data extrapolation or anything, we have no idea. Your assuming the hundred years was within the settlement period, but I'd say it's speculation. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:40, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
          • And you're reaching here. Unless another source says otherwise, this is what I'm going with. Cade Calrayn 23:46, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
            • The Holonet entry only states that Makeb was settled during the Mandalorian Wars. There are literally dozens of examples of planets which aren't settled but which are visited by various travelers, including scientists. I don't think in any way it's reaching to say that scientists could of visited the planet prior to it being settled and worked out that they were near-extinction. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:58, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
              • Firstly, have you been to Makeb? An enormous part of the plot is that Makeb's atmosphere basically prevents anyone from landing safely or leaving. Secondly, yes, the Holonet does say exactly what I'm talking about: "Undisturbed by civilization for a thousand years, Makeb was first colonized during the Mandalorian Wars..." Ergo, Makeb was first colonized during the Mandalorian Wars, and since they wouldn't know whether it's been on the verge of extinction without speculating about fossil data or other stuff, then Taprish's work must have happened at least a hundred years after the Mandalorian Wars. I'm serious here—if you're this anal about spelling and punctuation, you and the rest of us will all be better off. But right now, you're beating a dead horse. Cade Calrayn 00:14, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
                • Yes I have, and it's very difficult to land, but pretty obviously people have managed it. If anything the fact that it says "Undisturbed by civilization for a thousand years" suggests that, if anything, it has been visited before as the planets presumably existed for far longer than one thousand years before colonisation. I wasn't in any way suggesting that fossil stuff should be included that's obviously speculation, but what you've put is an assumption, which I don't think can be made. My spelling and punctuation do need work, I very openly admit that, but since you've told me and several other reviewers recently that our reviews are pretty much worthless since were not thorough enough I'm not going to just give in on what is a valid objection. Ayrehead02 (talk) 00:24, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
                  • Okay, here's the thing. Firstly, I did not mean that spelling/punctuation comment as an insult; I was commending your reviewing effort on this objection. Secondly, I would entire understand and submit to your objection if the Codex was an OOU, omniscient source. The problem is is that it's not—it's IU, and based off of galactic knowledge at the time. As the sources currently stand, we're stuck with what I've got. Cade Calrayn 00:31, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
                    • Sorry I misunderstood your meaning, thank you. I'm still not sure about this but I realise continuing to argue will not really achieve anything. Since I have no other complaints at all about the article I'll support it assuming no one else also takes issue with this objection. Sorry if I came off as at all rude in this discussion, it was never my intention to. Ayrehead02 (talk) 00:42, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Comments