- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Ghostling
- Nominated by: ~Savage
01:58, August 26, 2012 (UTC) - Nomination comments: Patrick Swayze, RIP. ~Savage 01:58, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
(4 Inqs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- A summer vacation well spent.--Demos Traxen (talk) 04:55, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Amazingly done. Plagueis327 (talk) 03:09, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
--Eyrezer (talk) 08:12, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:53, October 1, 2012 (UTC)- Still would hit. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 20:55, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Great work. Cade Calrayn 21:01, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- As always, I love your referencing. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:42, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
Object
Any information on the artist? --Eyrezer (talk) 07:04, September 30, 2012 (UTC)- I've searched high and low, and no mention of who did the illustration. The book doesn't mention it, and I haven't been able to find a copy of the actual game card (except for the front, which we have as the main image already), but judging by other Episode I Adventures game cards I have been able to track down, the books did not list the artist at all. Boo, Scholastic. ~Savage 00:36, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I've searched high and low, and no mention of who did the illustration. The book doesn't mention it, and I haven't been able to find a copy of the actual game card (except for the front, which we have as the main image already), but judging by other Episode I Adventures game cards I have been able to track down, the books did not list the artist at all. Boo, Scholastic. ~Savage
Comments
- I'm wondering if the line "When the Clone Wars broke out in 22 BBY, the Ghostlings sided with the Republic," should be/could be phrased "When the Clone Wars broke out in 22 BBY, the Ghostling homeworld remained within Republic-controlled space"?--Demos Traxen (talk) 04:57, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say yes if Datar weren't actually pictured on the map on that page of the Atlas. But since it's actually pictured, we generally assume it was officially part of the territory within which it fell. ~Savage 13:32, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't taken a look at that - My mistake. Move along, move along.--Demos Traxen (talk) 15:02, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say yes if Datar weren't actually pictured on the map on that page of the Atlas. But since it's actually pictured, we generally assume it was officially part of the territory within which it fell. ~Savage
- Just a note that I restored the pseudo-caption below the infobox image that was removed during one of the recent copy edits. I think it's important to have the caption there since the image depicts a Ghostling child, whereas all of our other infobox images show fully mature adults. In order not to give the impression that the Ghostling depicted is a representative of the species at adulthood, I added the caption. Note that this is similar to the reasoning behing having such a caption in the infobox image of Croke. If others disagree, I'm open to counter arguments, of course. And I appreciate the reviews! ~Savage 22:07, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I've since stricken my vote in light of this change. I totally disagree that this needs to be in there in this instance. There have been very few and very rare instances in which we have included additional text to accompany a main image in a status article, and those have been reserved for when something critically needs clarification -- year articles being the primary example here. I also disagree with the need to include the caption in the Croke article, but I concede that I can understand and somewhat appreciate the need to include that, though as I said, I still disagree with it, and I would not have included it myself. I do not believe this article, however, faces any truly critical need to include a caption. We simply use whatever image we have available to us that best illustrates a subject. In this case, the illustration happens to be of a child. Given the canonical description of the species as being very similar to Humans, we can come to a very basic assumption and understanding that the adult version of the species would look nearly identical to the image of the child. It's not as if there is some vast variation here that we need to explain the difference, like between a cocoon and a butterfly. I also fear that this sets a very dangerous and unnecessary precedent for status articles, in which this could very easily get out of hand with all sorts of different subjects. For example, the Croke's masked appearance is not basically different from the Tusken Raider's. Would we need to use an image caption for that article, should it ever reach status? I would certainly hope not, as I would consider it wholly unnecessary, especially given the basic real-world familiarity with what a Tusken Raider looks like. The Croke lacks the Tusken's real-world familiarity, which is why I say I can at least appreciate one's desire to include a caption, even if I disagree with it. As long as all necessary information in regards to the main image is detailed in the article itself, I think the main image deserves to stand on its own for exactly what canon has decided it to be, nothing more, nothing less, except in extremely rare and critical cases, which I do not feel this article meets. For this reason, although there is no direct policy regarding this, as it's still something that's really in the infancy stages of community consideration, I cannot support the article and the caption's inclusion. If you're willing to remove it again, Bob, I would be proud to support once more. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:59, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you in general, except here I do fear that presenting a juvenile where 99.99% of our alien species articles present an adult is misleading to readers. When I first nominated Croke, I actually did not include an infobox image, instead preferring to run the lead image in the "Biology and appearance" section, where a caption is not controversial at all. What would you think if I removed the infobox image here and did that? I'd be happy with the compromise, even if it makes the article less visually appealing to lack an infobox image. What do you think? ~Savage 02:38, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
- You know, as I was finishing typing out a response here, I began to reconsider this now that I think about it more, and I believe I have a greater appreciation for what I think you're trying to say here. There's nothing outward in the article that would necessarily lead the reader to understand they're looking at a child unless they open up the image and make the connection that the Princess is a child, which would naturally be detailed in an image caption in the article body. I relent here. I appreciate your willingness to compromise, by the way. Thanks. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:44, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
- No worries; I think it's a thorny issue. Last night, I remembered that images in wiki markup have a parameter called "alt" that controls what the image will read out when displaying in a browser that has turned off images, or when read aloud by a screen reader for someone who is seeing impaired. I tried to see if it would also cause the "alt text" to display in anyway on the page (even if just by hovering the mouse over the image), but it doesn't seem to, unfortunately. One last thing we could try (and I would be perfectly happy with this) would be for someone to rename File:Ghostling.jpg to File:Ghostling child.jpg. That would achieve the same thing I was trying to do with alt text, and would allow us to get the caption of the page. This would require administrator magic, though, so I'll leave it to you, Tope, to accomplish if you think it might be a good solution. ~Savage 11:33, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
- As long as that works for you, I have no problem with moving the file image to that, and I can take care of the move. At least that way it still shows the fact that it's a Ghostling child in some form. Sometimes Wikia's server can be really screwy when it comes to updating new file image names right away, so hopefully this all goes well. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:47, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to have worked! Thanks for the assist. The file name should warn anyone before they assume that Arawynne is eligible for Miss Star Wars. :) ~Savage 18:16, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Good deal. Thanks again for the compromise. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:28, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to have worked! Thanks for the assist. The file name should warn anyone before they assume that Arawynne is eligible for Miss Star Wars. :) ~Savage
- As long as that works for you, I have no problem with moving the file image to that, and I can take care of the move. At least that way it still shows the fact that it's a Ghostling child in some form. Sometimes Wikia's server can be really screwy when it comes to updating new file image names right away, so hopefully this all goes well. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:47, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
- No worries; I think it's a thorny issue. Last night, I remembered that images in wiki markup have a parameter called "alt" that controls what the image will read out when displaying in a browser that has turned off images, or when read aloud by a screen reader for someone who is seeing impaired. I tried to see if it would also cause the "alt text" to display in anyway on the page (even if just by hovering the mouse over the image), but it doesn't seem to, unfortunately. One last thing we could try (and I would be perfectly happy with this) would be for someone to rename File:Ghostling.jpg to File:Ghostling child.jpg. That would achieve the same thing I was trying to do with alt text, and would allow us to get the caption of the page. This would require administrator magic, though, so I'll leave it to you, Tope, to accomplish if you think it might be a good solution. ~Savage
- You know, as I was finishing typing out a response here, I began to reconsider this now that I think about it more, and I believe I have a greater appreciation for what I think you're trying to say here. There's nothing outward in the article that would necessarily lead the reader to understand they're looking at a child unless they open up the image and make the connection that the Princess is a child, which would naturally be detailed in an image caption in the article body. I relent here. I appreciate your willingness to compromise, by the way. Thanks. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:44, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you in general, except here I do fear that presenting a juvenile where 99.99% of our alien species articles present an adult is misleading to readers. When I first nominated Croke, I actually did not include an infobox image, instead preferring to run the lead image in the "Biology and appearance" section, where a caption is not controversial at all. What would you think if I removed the infobox image here and did that? I'd be happy with the compromise, even if it makes the article less visually appealing to lack an infobox image. What do you think? ~Savage
- I've since stricken my vote in light of this change. I totally disagree that this needs to be in there in this instance. There have been very few and very rare instances in which we have included additional text to accompany a main image in a status article, and those have been reserved for when something critically needs clarification -- year articles being the primary example here. I also disagree with the need to include the caption in the Croke article, but I concede that I can understand and somewhat appreciate the need to include that, though as I said, I still disagree with it, and I would not have included it myself. I do not believe this article, however, faces any truly critical need to include a caption. We simply use whatever image we have available to us that best illustrates a subject. In this case, the illustration happens to be of a child. Given the canonical description of the species as being very similar to Humans, we can come to a very basic assumption and understanding that the adult version of the species would look nearly identical to the image of the child. It's not as if there is some vast variation here that we need to explain the difference, like between a cocoon and a butterfly. I also fear that this sets a very dangerous and unnecessary precedent for status articles, in which this could very easily get out of hand with all sorts of different subjects. For example, the Croke's masked appearance is not basically different from the Tusken Raider's. Would we need to use an image caption for that article, should it ever reach status? I would certainly hope not, as I would consider it wholly unnecessary, especially given the basic real-world familiarity with what a Tusken Raider looks like. The Croke lacks the Tusken's real-world familiarity, which is why I say I can at least appreciate one's desire to include a caption, even if I disagree with it. As long as all necessary information in regards to the main image is detailed in the article itself, I think the main image deserves to stand on its own for exactly what canon has decided it to be, nothing more, nothing less, except in extremely rare and critical cases, which I do not feel this article meets. For this reason, although there is no direct policy regarding this, as it's still something that's really in the infancy stages of community consideration, I cannot support the article and the caption's inclusion. If you're willing to remove it again, Bob, I would be proud to support once more. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:59, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 23:42, October 14, 2012 (UTC)