Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Mitth'raw'nuruodo/Legends

< Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Mitth'raw'nuruodo

Support

  1. Herbsewell 23:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 11:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Darth Kevinmhk 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. I've been waiting on someone nominating this. :) —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. TIEPilot051999 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. SFH 19:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Orpheus 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. One of the few interesting EU characters, and a good article, too. KEJ 07:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Even though I'm not fond of Thrawn, it is a good article. Stake Black talk -Contribs at 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. SkywalkerPL 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. ThrawnRocks 04:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Kir Kanos (Hail the Empire!) 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, it finally fits the new requirements.
  13. AdamwankenobiTalk to me! My home. 22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. EAGLES610 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Cato Neimoidia 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. LandoSystem1138 03:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. UltimateMandalore555 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Snoop 15:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Roron Corobb This article is pretty good. 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. FrozenPhoenix32 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Great article. 5:23, 20 Jun 2006 (UTC)
  21. Thrawn3.14 00:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. My favorite character. :) CaptainPellaeon1138 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Obi-two-knobi 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Kuralyov 07:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. « Amina . skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Objections

  • I hate to ruin the party, but there are really a lot of redlinks in this article. The intro could probably also use some beefing up. Both of those things can be fixed very easily though, and after that I will throw my support behind Thrawn as well. :) - Breathesgelatin 09:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. The intro could actually be better and I would also like to see perhaps a nicer BTS. Also I sure would like to know where File:Thrawn-DB.jpg came from (and who is the actor) and the same for File:Thrawndeathjpg.jpg, File:Vadergrandadmirals.jpg and File:Thrawn.jpg (and perhaps renaming it?). --UVnet 07:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And you know what? I don't care how many times we've been over this but I still think this should be moved to Thrawn. --UVnet 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's already been decided in Consensus Track. Mitth'raw'nuruodo is the proper title by the consensus of Wiki members. - Lord Hydronium 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • As I said, I'm sorry but I don't care how many times we've been over this... --UVnet 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • An objection based on something already decided by consensus will not be sustained. There is absolutely no reason for a sore loser to hold an article hostage, especially when it has such overwhelming support. Kuralyov 07:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think, other than the quote, it mentions Thrawn's ability to glean info from a species just from their art, and that is a cool and key aspect of the character worth mentioning.LandoSystem1138 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thrawn? His character is over and done with. I think that he should have been a featured article when Outbound Flight came out.

Comments

  1. If memory serves, and it often does, he's already been a FA. TIEPilot051999 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He's deffinately not been, but many people confused the Chiss being FA as Thrawn. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, then. TIEPilot051999 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a good, solid article, and definitely seems to be FA material. Orpheus
  • Thrawn is one of the most influential and important warlords during the time of the New Republic. He is also one of the most complex and brilliant characters in the entire Expanded Universe. The article not only needs to be well written, but known to be about a critical role in the Star Wars Sega.
  • Agree SkywalkerPL 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Exuse me, but the fact that the article has a "few" red links has nothing to do with why it should not being a featured article. If you see it says "reasonable amount of red links", and I think that 12 red links should be able to be ignored considering that the article follows every other requirement to be a FA.
    • I respectully disagree. I think 12 is a large number of redlinks, and furthermore, some of those redlinks contain information that is necessary to understand important aspects of Thrawn's life. It should be easy to clear up the redlinks, however. - Breathesgelatin 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I almost agree, but still think that it is FA material. Kir Kanos (Hail the Empire!) 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this going to become a FA, or not?
    • It can't until the objections are removed. - Breathesgelatin 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I know that but are they ever going to be removed
        • Well I for one am not deleting my objections until those redlinks are gone. - Breathesgelatin 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Still has a few reddies in there. Can't quite call it the best. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of the redlinks are minor, inconsequential things or are explained in the article. I don't think they pose a problem. CaptainPellaeon1138 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Some of the original redlinks have been removed, but I stil maintain that there a few too many in this article. If they are inconsequential things, then they should be easy to make simple pages for so that that Thrawn can be featured. I'll only strike out my objection then. - Breathesgelatin 03:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Six redlinks left. If someone can fill them out, we're in business. QuentinGeorge 07:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Per Breathesgelatin and QuentinGeorge. —Mirlen 21:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We're down to two reddies. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)