- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Nigel III
- Nominated by: Imperialles 07:49, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Followup to Nigel VI
(1 GCs/5 Users/6 Total)
Support
- SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:53, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
- --TK-299 (Click Here)
11:14, June 2, 2010 (UTC) - NAYAYEN:TALK 12:28, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
- —Master Jonathan
(Jedi Council Chambers) 17:10, June 10, 2010 (UTC) 
--Eyrezer 13:12, June 12, 2010 (UTC)- ~ SavageBob 17:01, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
Object
In the Bts, can't you just say that it isn't explicitly stated whether it is in the Nigel system rather than smack of speculation and say "could very well"?NAYAYEN:TALK 11:23, June 2, 2010 (UTC)- Better? --Imperialles 11:42, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
No inferred info from the Atlas? When became part of the greater galaxy, whom the surrounding territory was allied with at various points in history, etc.? Otherwise, looks solid. ~ SavageBob 20:07, June 7, 2010 (UTC)- We don't know the planet's exact placement, so there is no information to infer from maps. It's probably in the Nigel system, but that's never stated or even hinted at (beyond the name). Nigel VI's isolation makes me hesitant to assume Nigel III is in the same system. --Imperialles 20:17, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it's not a stretch to say it is in the Nigel system, since that's what Wallace and Fry were trying to convey with the limited space they had in the Atlas. I mean, is there any reason to assume it's not the same system? But I can understand the extreme caution approach too. Consider this my objection stricken though. ~ SavageBob 20:47, June 7, 2010 (UTC)- Why doesn't the same logic apply to placing Nigel VI in that system? IMHO, it would not be OR to place [Nigel III] in the Nigel system. --Eyrezer 04:51, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? The Nigel VI article says that it was in the Nigel system. ~ SavageBob 04:55, June 12, 2010 (UTC)- Yes, but it is sourced to the Atlas Companion which gives no indication of whether it refers to III or VI. If one is to truly take a conservative approach and not put III in the Nigel system, I can not see how putting VI in the system can be justified. If the Nigel system is actually from another source it may be justified, but in that case it still shouldn't be referenced to the Atlas. --Eyrezer 05:01, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. This is dangerous territory. To me, it's no stretch at all (or OR) to say that Skor II is in the Skor system, or Dalicron-4 is in the Dalicron system or any number of similar placements. After all, that's how systems work in Star Wars, and that's the kind of information the Atlas is supposed to give us in the limited amount of space it has. If we want to take the ultra-conservative approach, there are probably hundreds of articles on the Wook that need to be changed to reflect the fact that no source has ever explicitly made the connection that "Foo VIII" is in the "Foo system" or what have you. ~ SavageBob 06:00, June 12, 2010 (UTC)Precisely. --Eyrezer 07:00, June 12, 2010 (UTC)- Should all be sorted now. --Imperialles 13:10, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is sourced to the Atlas Companion which gives no indication of whether it refers to III or VI. If one is to truly take a conservative approach and not put III in the Nigel system, I can not see how putting VI in the system can be justified. If the Nigel system is actually from another source it may be justified, but in that case it still shouldn't be referenced to the Atlas. --Eyrezer 05:01, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Why doesn't the same logic apply to placing Nigel VI in that system? IMHO, it would not be OR to place [Nigel III] in the Nigel system. --Eyrezer 04:51, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
- We don't know the planet's exact placement, so there is no information to infer from maps. It's probably in the Nigel system, but that's never stated or even hinted at (beyond the name). Nigel VI's isolation makes me hesitant to assume Nigel III is in the same system. --Imperialles 20:17, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Comments