- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Abbaji (Kalee system)
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
Assuming Menk's objections are filled. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 04:14, December 26, 2012 (UTC)- Mattjorgdbb (talk) 04:43, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 10:41, January 9, 2013 (UTC) - Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 22:45, January 13, 2013 (UTC) - Menkooroo (talk) 03:59, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Object
Cav
Context on Imperial Remnant and Pentastar Alignment needed.- Tweaked.
Okay - if the term Abbaji Minor is technically not official, why is it being used as such? Fry terms it Abbaji Minor, but you have the article at Abbaji (minor). If the term is unofficial, then something such as Abbaji (Kalee system) would be more accurate as the article title. However, nothing in that referenced post says the term is unofficial. If there is a reference to its status, then that has to be referenced as well. In fact, according to the post, Fry is saying that the planet should be named Abbaji Minor, which the article should reflect if correct. Thoughts?- Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 11:53, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Maaah. I changed it to comply with an objection made by Menk, here. The name "Abbaji Minor" only appeared in that certain post by Jason Fry. He retconned it in a post within a forum, and that's just it, nothing else confirms this retcon. Winterz (talk) 13:41, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, if it's only been named on a forum post but never in an official publication, I don't think we can treat it as official. That's why I suggested on the CAN page that Winterz move the article --- it seems like authorial intent that never made it into print. Menkooroo (talk) 13:59, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case (although Fry's answers in these regards on this and the Warfare thread on the JC are usually cited in articles for corrections and the like), then Abbaji (minor) is still incorrect as it draws on the authorial intent name. Abbaji (Kalee system) would be more correct in this case. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 14:02, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case (although Fry's answers in these regards on this and the Warfare thread on the JC are usually cited in articles for corrections and the like), then Abbaji (minor) is still incorrect as it draws on the authorial intent name. Abbaji (Kalee system) would be more correct in this case. - Cavalier One
- Yeah, if it's only been named on a forum post but never in an official publication, I don't think we can treat it as official. That's why I suggested on the CAN page that Winterz move the article --- it seems like authorial intent that never made it into print. Menkooroo (talk) 13:59, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Maaah. I changed it to comply with an objection made by Menk, here. The name "Abbaji Minor" only appeared in that certain post by Jason Fry. He retconned it in a post within a forum, and that's just it, nothing else confirms this retcon. Winterz (talk) 13:41, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
Context on the Yam'rii and Kaleesh in the intro.- Done.
Are the Kaleesh refered to as renowned in the source? Otherwise, I think you should remove the word.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:33, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Abbaji
Is Category:Planets aligned with the Fel Empire correct? It's a category, but no mention of the Fel Empire is made in the article.- Ooops, removed.
- That's all.
I removed a couple of links (the Imperial Remnant doesn't exist until 12 ABY, and the Security Police are a Corporate sector thing) and did some rewording in the BTS to try to make the retcon situation clear. Let me know what you think.Menkooroo (talk) 03:46, January 15, 2013 (UTC)- It's overall good besides one thing. I mentioned in the article that it bordered the Imperial Remnant not the Galactic Empire. When I used the GE, I was contextualizing the remnant, per an objection above. Anyway, I've reworded that, check it out. Winterz (talk) 11:37, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- What year does that specific Atlas map represent? I notice that you removed the 4 ABY pipelink, so I'm curious. The Imperial Remnant doesn't exist until 12 ABY, and it never borders the Pentastar Alignment --- the Alignment is annexed by Pellaeon and becomes a part of the Remnant at the time of the Remnant's inception. The Alignment is, however, a splinter government of the Galactic Empire from 4 ABY to 12 ABY. Menkooroo (talk) 11:43, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- You were right, sir. Corrected that and a few other things. Winterz (talk) 16:49, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Cool tools. However, the new wording of "Abbaji was bordered by the territories of the Pentastar Alignment, an imperial splinter movement post-Galactic Empire." It borders the territories of the Pentastar Alignment and... what else? Since "territories" is plural, it seems like something else should be mentioned. Also, "post-Galactic Empire" isn't the best wording for the Pentastar Alignment, since it existed concurrently with the Empire for eleven years.
- You were right, sir. Corrected that and a few other things. Winterz (talk) 16:49, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- What year does that specific Atlas map represent? I notice that you removed the 4 ABY pipelink, so I'm curious. The Imperial Remnant doesn't exist until 12 ABY, and it never borders the Pentastar Alignment --- the Alignment is annexed by Pellaeon and becomes a part of the Remnant at the time of the Remnant's inception. The Alignment is, however, a splinter government of the Galactic Empire from 4 ABY to 12 ABY. Menkooroo (talk) 11:43, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- It's overall good besides one thing. I mentioned in the article that it bordered the Imperial Remnant not the Galactic Empire. When I used the GE, I was contextualizing the remnant, per an objection above. Anyway, I've reworded that, check it out. Winterz (talk) 11:37, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
If it's not in fact mentioned in the Atlas, then the current BTS wording of "Abbaji became the second planet in Star Wars universe known by that name, with The Essential Atlas placing it and Kalee in the same system..." should be changed. If the Atlas doesn't mention Abbaji, then it couldn't have placed Abbaji and Kalee in the same system. It seems like the Atlas does, however, give details about the Kalee system --- the BTS could mention that.- Damn it, my bad, I confused it with the Abbaji from Endor's region. This one does indeed appear in the Atlas, reverted my edit.
A link and context on both the Atlas and Jason Fry are needed now that you've excised that earlier sentence about them from the BTS.Menkooroo (talk) 03:29, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 04:24, January 24, 2013 (UTC)