Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Voorpee

< 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.

Voorpee

  • Nominated by: ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:53, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Good article nomination that, quite simply, got too long. Well, in any case, before the nomination was closed, I had gotten support from one AgriCorp member and three regular users and didn't have any outstanding objections. Still, I'd be happy to address any other concerns that may be brought up. The original nomination can be found here. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:53, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

(4 Inqs/4 Users/8 Total)

(Votes required: None. Required vote total reached, but current outstanding objections.)

Support

  1. It's nice to see a less serious article every so often. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:19, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 23:35, July 31, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:44, August 1, 2016 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote This... this is a thing. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:25, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
  5. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 17:31, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
  6. The Brave Goldfish (talk) 11:45, November 7, 2016 (EET)
  7. Great stuff! --Lewisr (talk) 01:10, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Inqvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:17, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • The intro should be updated to include information about the cloning and talent show. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:22, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • I would reword the bts concerning Brown saying pets would appear in the third book as it is currently a bit confusing to read and not entirely clear that the Phantom Bully is the third book unless you follow the link. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:22, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it clear if the original Voorpee is the one that is kept, or could he be amongst the ones returned to the zoo or the rescue organization? If it isn't clar you should at least mention this in the behind the scenes and maybe even in the body. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:22, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, I tried something like that, but if you look back at Manoof's objections on the original Good article nomination, I ended up getting rid of it because if nothing is stated either way, then the custom is to not say anything at all. And the book really doesn't. After the whole mess happens, Voorpee himself isn't mentioned again at all. It's entirely unclear whether they ever even found the original Voorpee. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:37, July 22, 2015 (UTC)
Floyd
  • Can we get a timeframe in the intro?
  • "In the second semester, Novachez, who had been struggling with his friendships," What do you mean by this? Was he struggling to make friends or having issues with the friends he had?
    • Reworded to make it clear that he was having issues with the friends he already had. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:21, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • No quote for the P&T? I know he doesn't speak himself, but I'm sure there are lines said about him. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:08, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
    • Good idea. Quotation for the P&T section has been added. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:21, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
  • The biography section needs to be subsectioned. Ideally, each section should have its own quote, provided there are enough quotes about Voorpee. I would think you could easily get at least three sections from what is there now.
    • Well, it was originally back when had nominated it for good article, but it was said that I didn't need them because the article wasn't long enough to merit it. I'll go ahead and get that taken care of. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:40, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
  • If there are interviews with the author, it seems to me that you could add a quote to the BTS about Voorpee from one of them.
    • The interview in question is one that I did. Voorpee is only mentioned in one question and with the way that the question was answered, I don't think adding a quote is really going to enhance the article in any way. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:40, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
  • If "This article is non-canon within the Star Wars Legends continuity.", then please mention this in the BTS and provide a source for it. If it is one of the books that state this, then just source it to the book in question. Without a source, it just looks like an assumption.
    • Added this to the behind-the-scenes and linked it to the previously mentioned interview, which references the fact that the story is not canon. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:20, February 12, 2017 (UTC)
  • You should try to limit the amount of times that you include a word in the main section in quotes. It doesn't seem necessary some of the times you are doing it. I think it would be easy to reword some of these sections to prevent the need for the quotes.
    • I can only find five instances of this and, I'm sorry, but in each case, it seems fitting. To explain further though, the character claim they are taking him for "walks," but said "walks" are actually an excuse to torture him. Another is "new pet," which again, I think makes more sense in quotation marks. Finally, I believe "commands such as 'jump' or 'roll over'" would be standard usage. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:40, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
  • You have quite a few missing links in the article. Normally I would fix them myself, but there are a lot for an article this close to passing. For instance you are missing links to Torture, Week, Zoo, etc. You also have things that are linked in the introduction and not in the body. Everything needs to be linked once in the infobox, once in the introduction, and once in the body.
    • Everything done (and I think maybe one or two other things), except for "zoo." This is only ever referenced as "Naboo Zoo" throughout the article. Should I just link the "Zoo" at one point? I thought about adding something stating something like "a zoo based on the planet Naboo," but this almost seems like adding information that should be completely obvious simply for the point of getting a reference to "zoo" in there. Still need to do the sections - will take care of that later this evening or early tomorrow. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:20, February 12, 2017 (UTC)
      • Never mind on that last bit - I found a way to work in links for zoo that feel reasonably natural. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:08, February 14, 2017 (UTC)
  • I realize that this nomination had enough votes to pass, but I believe that these deficiencies need to be addressed before it can be considered a featured article.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 00:01, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure, I don't mind doing that. I'm all about making sure we have it as good a quality as possible. I just hope it can be handled with good speed since I did already have enough votes to pass. Anyway, gotta go right now, but I will take care of / reply to the rest before the end of the evening. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:40, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
  • "Students at the academy were encouraged to care for Voorpee at the academy's care center, feeding him a preferred diet of live insects and keeping his soft fur clean." I'm seeing some of this information in the body, but some of it seems to be exclusive to the introduction.
    • Added an item regarding the care center and keeping his fur clean in the "Academy arrival" section. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:38, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
  • "arriving from the zoo with the other students at the beginning of the school year." This makes it sound like the students and Voorpee all went from the zoo to the academy at the start of the school year. Is this the case? If not, please reword this.
    • Ambiguous syntax, I suppose. I reworded it to just say that he arrived "at the Jedi academy" rather than "from the zoo," which is unnecessary since it already says he was on loan from the zoo. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:38, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe you should keep the date consistent between reference 2 and the body of the article. In the reference, you have 196 BBY, while you link to 200 BBY in the body and introduction. You should probably just pipelink to 196 BBY in the body and introduction.
    • Hmm. Not sure what happened here, other than just trying to go with a nice round number Changed it to 196. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:38, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
  • If there are other quotes related to Voorpee from the novels, please provide those for the subsections in the biography section.
  • Does The Essential Atlas say that voorpaks are small, fuzzy creatures? That is what reference 3 seems to be saying in the biography right now.
    • No, you're right, that's only to source the fact that Naboo is Mid Rim. I changed that to reference from Return of the Padawan. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:38, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
      • You are still sourcing the fact that they are native to Naboo to the Atlas.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 22:29, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
        • How I am doing that? I now have the Essential Atlas reference directly after "Mid-Rim" and then have "planet Naboo" and following that, the reference to The Official Star Wars Fact File 106. Sorry, I'm just not sure what I'm missing here. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:07, July 17, 2017 (UTC)
          • Right now you have "native to the Mid Rim" sourced to just The Essential Atlas. "Native" cannot be sourced to that.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 02:35, August 24, 2017 (UTC)
  • The third and final paragraphs of the biography would benefit from being reordered to present the events in a more chronological order. If would make sense to display the information in the current way if the article was about Novachez or someone else who found the information out in the presented order, but since this is outlining the events of Voorpee's life, a chronological ordering makes more sense. Just because a novel present the information in one order, does not mean that the article needs to as well.
    • Are you referring to the paragraphs "Return to school" and "Cloned chaos"? Because, if so, I'm not sure what you mean. Everything is in order both in terms of how it's presented in the novel and in terms of the actual chronology except for the very last sentence about how "It was later revealed that Cronah and Ronald Rinzler, a fellow student who styled himself as a politician, were responsible for the pranks, part of their continued effort to humiliate Novachez." Do you want me to move just the information in that sentence? Or is there something else I can do to make the timeline more clear? ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:38, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
      • What I am asking is for you to present the information in the order that it happens to Voorpee, not the order that it is mentioned in the book. You mention that Voorpee went missing and then reveal how that happened. You also mention the clones after you mention instances where the clones appeared. Writing it this way feels like a condensed version of the novel and not an article about the subject, which is what you should be aiming for.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 22:29, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah, I got it now. Okay, how's that? ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:07, July 17, 2017 (UTC)
          • That is better. The second paragraph of Victim of bullying should be reordered in a similar fashion.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 02:35, August 24, 2017 (UTC)
            • Done. Only seemed to require a slight rewording, but let me know if you still feel anything's wrong. Otherwise, should be good to go. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:07, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
  • You should not use contractions in a Wookieepedia article outside of quotes.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 23:37, May 22, 2017 (UTC)
    • If this is true, I'd like to see a guideline in the Manual of Style or wherever saying such. I don't personally agree with this and I feel writing without contractions simply for no other reason than writing without contractions sounds forced and unnatural. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:38, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
      • This is actually a valid point, and until it is addressed I will have to withdraw my support as well. At the very beginning of our manual of style there is a reference that states "For information on the most basic writing techniques and styles, which are used here, see Wikipedia's Manual of Style." Encyclopedic writing is expected to follow basic rules of formal writing, and even putting aside rules imported from Wikipedia, avoiding contractions in encyclopedic/professional writing is a fundamental rule of style shared by APA, AP, IEEE, and other professional style guides. Contractions are only for informal/non-academic use. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:19, June 4, 2017 (UTC)
        • You didn't have to withdraw your support. I would have been happy to just corrected it. The only reason I did not do so immediately was because I did not believe it to be a rule. I did know that it was a rule on Wikipedia, but as we all know, Wookieedpedia is not Wikipedia. Nevertheless, it does appear based on what you're saying that Wikipedia's manual is considered to be the bedrock unless specifically contradicted, so I made the correction. I still retain my original opinion, but the rule trumps that. Anyway, I corrected it, though I feel the need to point out that there was only a single contraction of my own doing in the article to begin with. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:59, June 4, 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you very much for being reasonable about this. And I mean that in a totally honest and non-sarcastic way that probably doesn't come across well in plaintext, especially given my reputation. ☺️ Disputes like this have historically tended to become entrenched, so I removed my support vote preemptively and that was probably premature. And WP:NOT is why I provided other references for standards of academic writing. I have unstruck my vote and look forward to this article's promotion. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:14, June 4, 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was not until towards the end of the school year that Cronah and Rinzler were the ones responsible for the prank." I think something is missing in this sentence.
    • Yeah, "were discovered to be the ones responsible." Fixed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:07, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
  • The image quality for the images used in this article is pretty low. Were some of these images taken with a phone? In any event, the images should be replaced with higher quality scans.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 02:35, August 24, 2017 (UTC)
    • No, not with a phone, but perhaps not the greatest quality scanner. I've replaced three of them with images taken directly from the eBook version. I think the other two are okay, but if you feel otherwise, let me know, and I'll replace those as well. (The other two are the main image and the one showing all the clones, which I think is already from the eBook version.) ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:07, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
      • If I may interject here, to respond to Tofty's latest comment, it is now site policy that images added to articles be "as high quality as possible, as source availability and technical restraints permit." If you have reasonable access to digital eBook versions of this stuff, there's no excuse for any of the images in this article to be anything but. In other words, you need to be uploading digital versions of all of these images. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:34, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
        • And on that note, all images in this article now originate from the eBook versions. ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:25, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
  • "...trained here under Jedi Master Yoda and various other Jedi, including Mr. Garfield and Principal Mar." The last part of this sentence contains detail that does not seem to be important to the article subject. It would probably be better to just note that Yoda and various other Jedi trained the Padawans, rather than mention two of those Jedi.
  • If the class pet program was started by Gaiana, it seems to me that should be mentioned earlier in the article. This fits in more with the part about the Naboo Zoo loaning Voorpee to the academy.
    • How much earlier would you have me mention it? It's already in the first paragraph, right after I mention Gaiana and the school newspaper. Or do you think it should go in the intro? ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:13, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
      • I would mention the information about Gaiana with the information about him being temporarily on loan to the Jedi Academy. Since she started it due to her seeing voorpaks on Naboo, I believe all of the information should be mentioned together.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 01:19, September 30, 2017 (UTC)
        • This objection is still open.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 18:27, October 22, 2017 (UTC)
          • Oops. Alright, added information about the class pet program earlier in the paragraph. How's that now? ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:34, October 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • "...but per his own journal, he was not the culprit." Since you have already established in the article that he did not kidnap Voorpee, I don't think this adds anything.
    • Good point, that's a relic of when the order of events was listed differently. Removed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:13, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite his anger and dismay, however, Novachez became disillusioned with the two bullies, whom he suspected did not really care about his feelings." Could you try and shorten this and merge it into the next sentence? You should note his motivations, but I do not believe that this level of detail is required.
  • "Lilly, a new student who was also with Gaiana and Roan, was not impressed by this teasing and asked Cyrus why his friend was so mean." How is this in any way related to Voorpee?--Exiled Jedi (talk) 13:07, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
    • I think I was just trying to explain the scene and give background, but yeah, it's not really related it, so I took it out. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:13, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  • You have two different redlinks in the article currently. I see that the 195 BBY date is being discussed below, but there is also another redlink.
    • Yeah, that was the link for "year." I'm not even sure how that happened. Fixed that to link to "Standard year/Legends" before I had even read this objection. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:25, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • One thing is rather unclear in the end of the biography: Were they able to locate the original Voorpee or did they lose track and just keep one of them?
    • Well, this ties back to something that was being discussed in earlier objection. The book simply doesn't say and from what I understand, if the source material doesn't have anything to say about it, then we're not supposed to say anything about it either, right? I could put something like "it was uncertain whether the original Voorpee was ever found," but I was under the impression that it was procedure in a case like this to just not say anything at all. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:25, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention that there were hundreds of clones in the introduction and in an image caption, but not in the actual biography. If this specific information is provided, it needs to be in the biography.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 01:19, September 30, 2017 (UTC)
    • Got it. Updated that section to say that it was hundreds. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:25, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that the last several sentences of victim of bullying drift away from the topic of this article. Could you condense this information down somewhat?--Exiled Jedi (talk) 18:27, October 22, 2017 (UTC)
    • Condensed that down to a single sentence. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:34, October 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • There is some weird formatting going on with the article in the first section of the biography. Could you please correct this?--Exiled Jedi (talk) 20:58, November 10, 2017 (UTC)
    • Weird formatting? I'm not seeing it. It all looks A-OK on my end. Can you describe exactly what you're seeing or post a screenshot? ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:35, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
      • It was probably the whitespace in front of a paragraph, as seen here. It was causing the entire paragraph to be wrapped in <pre></pre> formatting. However AV seems to have fixed it. 1358 (Talk) 17:54, November 13, 2017 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • The article can do a more precise job of dating the events therein. If Jedi Academy says Yoda is 700 years old, then that places that book in 196 BBY, not "approximately" 196 BBY, as the reference states. Moreover, the summary of Return of the Padawan clearly states that its events take place the following school year, which would be 195 BBY; and The Phantom Bully is the next year after that, 194 BBY. The article should affix these dates throughout the Bio with proper referencing for each date, modeled after the current date reference. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:57, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
    • Again, perhaps I'm missing something here, but if it states that he's 700 years old, how does that automatically place it in 196 BBY, or at least the entirety of it? For example, say that you know that a person was born on September 21, 1970. In our example, they're 46 years old, but that could make the current year either 2016, or the current year could be 2017, if it's January, February, March, etc., any date of the year before September 21, 2017. ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:25, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
      • Then call it circa 196 BBY, circa 195 BBY, and circa 194 BBY. Even that nails it down more narrowly than what the article is currently doing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:46, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
        • Alright, changed to say "circa" instead. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:13, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay, I think I got it right now and changed it to 195 BBY. If that's still not it, could you just state straightforward exactly what it is you're saying or just make the change? Sorry, but things have been kinda hectic lately and I feel like I've just lost the thread at this point. ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:25, September 21, 2017 (UTC)
          • P.S.: It appears we don't actually have a page for 195 BBY. Would you consider it worth creating a non-canon page for it, given that it isn't even mentioned directly, or should I just de-link it? ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:27, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
            • Yes, I would create an article for it. It will need to have the non-canon header tag on it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:00, April 26, 2018 (UTC)
              • Alright. 195 BBY created. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:47, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
                • The other remaining issue from this original objection, which I will reiterate. Each book of the Jedi Academy series is meant to take place in the successive school year. I'm pretty sure all the books say something to this extent. So if Return of the Padawan takes place in 195 BBY, then the events of The Phantom Bully must take place in the next school year, which would be 194 BBY. The point at which this article starts detailing the events of Phantom Bully should specify the beginning of the next school year, in 194 BBY, with appropriate date referencing like you did for 195 BBY. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:56, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
                  • Got it. Is the way I did it okay, to refer back to the previous reference? It seems to silly to repeat the whole explanation again, but I can if it's needed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:05, May 1, 2018 (UTC)
                    • That's not ideal, as we should make understanding our references as easy on readers as possible. Making them read multiple references to understand something defeats the quick "hover-over-and-read-this-ref-note" feature thing. Explain whatever needs to be explained in each individual reference. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:23, May 7, 2018 (UTC)
                      • Ah yes, I forgot about the hover. That makes sense then. Alright, edited so that it's fully explained in each reference. I also corrected a point regarding the actual dating, which I think I had a brain-fart before. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:42, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's start fresh on this one (we'll come back to the dating thing later). For starters, you don't need those two Amazon refs in the BTS. All of that information (publication year and author credit) is included in the books, so you can just use those same references. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:59, March 10, 2018 (UTC)
    • Got it. Amazon links dropped - now just referencing the books themselves. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:01, March 21, 2018 (UTC)
  • We have many articles for individual Jedi academies. Why not have one for this Coruscant academy? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:13, March 22, 2018 (UTC)
    • You know, that's a good question. Surprised it hadn't come up before now, but, yeah come to think of it, I can't think of any good reason not to have an article for this one. And, in fact I have now created that article. It's a stub right now, but I'll be working on it more tomorrow morning, including getting it linked up on other articles besides just Voorpee. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 31, 2018 (UTC)
  • Do neither of the stories indicate his eye color? It seems we could at least call them "dark" in the infobox and article body, based on the images.
    • I suppose we could, though the truth is that the series uses the cartoony convention known as "black-bead eyes" for every character. If we were to use the series as a source for the eye colors of other characters as well, then we'd have to describe Yoda's eyes for example as being "dark" or "black" as well. I feel like it would be better to leave it out. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:52, October 7, 2018 (UTC)
  • You should be cropping out the comic frames in the first and second body images, but don't whiten the speech bubbles. These images should look like what you did with the P/T image, for example.
  • You also need to do a better job of cropping out the border in the talent show image. If you open up that image and look closely, you can see how sloppily you cropped that out, as it still appears in several places. I realize the borders on these images are not perfectly straight, but you just need to remove the border, even if it means sacrificing a sliver of the image. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:17, September 24, 2018 (UTC)
    • All images now cropped to remove the borders. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:52, October 7, 2018 (UTC)
      • I re-uploaded the leash image so it wasn't cropping off part of Voorpee's legs. Since the border was so uneven, it couldn't be cropped without doing that, so I opted to white it out instead. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:15, October 8, 2018 (UTC)
Furry Imperators
  • Please fix the backup links for the Databank citation and the Wizards.com citations.
    • I fixed the Wizards.com - however, what issue were you having with the Databank one? I just tried it myself and it worked just fine. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:27, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's because, fortunately for you, Xd1358 edited the DB template itself to the effect that the backup links should work automatically for most cases now. Imperators II(Talk) 21:33, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
  • Please add backup links for the Amazon citations. Imperators II(Talk) 20:59, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
    • I added one for Return of the Padawan, however, it doesn't appear that the Internet Archive has a backup page for The Phantom Bully. If you want, I could add a backup link for Internet Archive's page for the URL, but everything on there either clicks back as a redirect to Amazon's page or a broken link, not an actual backup page. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:27, September 27, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 17:17, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Request to strike Exile Jedi's objections

Okay, this is why I start to get a bit irritated. I get distracted and neglect to check on the objections for jefflac for a little while and the nomination gets archived faster than I can blink. I know that you are supposed to be responsible for checking that and I blame myself too, but if I had just received a friendly note or anything, I would have been happy to take care of it. And I was in IRC several times last night also and nobody mentioned anything about it to me. I know there's procedures and all, but given the general apathy lately regarding the status articles process, it doesn't always pay to cling to procedure. Meanwhile, I've had these objections addressed for over three months and yet nothing has been done. If we're going to be so quick to enforce the one side, then the people who are responsible for doing the reviewing need to do their part too. In any case, before these objections came, I had the required votes to pass. I have addressed the objections and there has been no response. I am asking that the objections of Exiled Jedi be struck as having been addressed and un-responded, and if there are no other objections, then for the nomination to be passed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:45, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

  • After a conversation with Supreme Emperor, I have decided as a show of good faith to strike this request for now and give Exiled another chance to respond. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:01, May 20, 2017 (UTC)