- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
13,000,000,000 BBY
- Nominated by: NaruHina Talk
08:08, July 19, 2012 (UTC) - Nomination comments: In the beginning, there was a collapse that didn't shrink the galaxy at all. So was it really a collapse?
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Plagueis327 (talk) 00:14, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 20:36, July 22, 2012 (UTC)- —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 14:26, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 18:19, August 2, 2012 (UTC)- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:28, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
- CC7567 (talk) 08:54, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
Object
Objections, objections…
There should be a reference for the era.—Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:40, July 19, 2012 (UTC)- So let it be written, so let it be done. NaruHina Talk 06:15, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 14:26, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
- So let it be written, so let it be done. NaruHina Talk
Grunny
The last sentence of the "The galaxy in 13,000,000,000 BBY" section is missing a ref.grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 05:37, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
- For refs 11, 12, and 15, if you choose to specify the religion in the actual citation, please use full sentences to explain it—just briefly, mentioning and linking to the subject and then the source that it came from. Otherwise, it's implied through the current ref formatting that the Wookieepedia articles are sources, which they are not.
- I don't see how it does that at all, any more than a link to a book's article implies that the information came from the book's Wook page. Expanded, nonetheless. NaruHina Talk 04:09, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Do the creation myths even need to be specified in the refs, then? Since they're not mentioned in the body, it doesn't sound like they need to be mentioned in the refs either; the citation of the sources should suffice. CC7567 (talk) 08:06, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
- No, but I think they should be. That was why I didn't write them out as full sentences and simply had links out to the specific myths. I just don't feel like simply saying "This source mentions a creation myth" is enough. Readers are going to come to this page to find out about the creation of the galaxy and mentioning the existence of the different types of myths, as I must, is going to make them think "Ooo! Creation myths!" but not linking out to the myths from the article at all would be an almost insurmountable dead end. There'd be pretty much no way for them to find out anything else about the myths otherwise. They're really obscure mentions in really obscure sources and to find them, you have to know beforehand what you're looking for. NaruHina Talk 08:34, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
- No, but I think they should be. That was why I didn't write them out as full sentences and simply had links out to the specific myths. I just don't feel like simply saying "This source mentions a creation myth" is enough. Readers are going to come to this page to find out about the creation of the galaxy and mentioning the existence of the different types of myths, as I must, is going to make them think "Ooo! Creation myths!" but not linking out to the myths from the article at all would be an almost insurmountable dead end. There'd be pretty much no way for them to find out anything else about the myths otherwise. They're really obscure mentions in really obscure sources and to find them, you have to know beforehand what you're looking for. NaruHina Talk
- Do the creation myths even need to be specified in the refs, then? Since they're not mentioned in the body, it doesn't sound like they need to be mentioned in the refs either; the citation of the sources should suffice. CC7567 (talk) 08:06, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how it does that at all, any more than a link to a book's article implies that the information came from the book's Wook page. Expanded, nonetheless. NaruHina Talk
As you already do for the Mandalorian religion, I would also encourage you to mention each religion/creation myth explicitly in the article body, which is where the information should be coming from (instead of in references) to make it more accessible for the reader.- Actually, the specific myths should not be in the body. The article is about the creation of the galaxy. The references to the different religions were included to describe how different cultures dealt with the question of "why is this big thing here?" and it addresses that by listing different ways they did that. However, the Spirit Tree has to do with life on Endor, and the Gungans had a religion that dealt with the creation of the planet of Naboo. The only culture whose story dealt with the creation of the galaxy was the Mandalorians'. The other types need only be mentioned as existing. NaruHina Talk 04:09, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the specific myths should not be in the body. The article is about the creation of the galaxy. The references to the different religions were included to describe how different cultures dealt with the question of "why is this big thing here?" and it addresses that by listing different ways they did that. However, the Spirit Tree has to do with life on Endor, and the Gungans had a religion that dealt with the creation of the planet of Naboo. The only culture whose story dealt with the creation of the galaxy was the Mandalorians'. The other types need only be mentioned as existing. NaruHina Talk
While it's not covered by policy, I would recommend that you specify ref names each time you introduce a new citation. It helps a lot if you need to add more refs in the future.CC7567 (talk) 00:52, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 08:54, August 11, 2012 (UTC)