- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Chiraneau
- Nominated by: Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC) - Nomination comments: With help from 71.233.247.70.
(5 ACs/1 Users/6 Total)
Support
- All that in a day? You should have gotten the anon to nom it, that way we would have had our first anon GA : ) SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 09:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh-oh, cutting in on Tope's ESB/ROTJ extras. Graestan(Talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)- After a hefty copy-edit. Keep the extrapolation out. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The previous, pre-Tope's copyedit version strayed way too far from the subject, but it looks fine now. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)- - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- DC 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Object
I'm sorry, but can't you find any unique info for the P&T? Half of it doesn't even have to do with his personally, it's just restated info.DC 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)- There's no other info on him. And while there may not be anything on his personality, the P&T shows his traits. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 15:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- DC was on about this in #wookieepedia the other night. I'm of the opinion that a little rewording to highlight the character aspect of the information would make it much more acceptable, but otherwise, I don't believe that the very existence of the P&T can be objected to. There are rules asking for the information if it's available, and clearly there is information pertaining to what a P&T entails. There are not, however, rules stating that a P&T should not be included for any specific reason. Graestan(Talk) 04:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reworded it a bit. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 12:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I regret that I have to step into this, but I've reverted Tranner's latest edit to the P/T, which was very similar to how the section looked originally, before my copy-edit, and an edit that was just unnecessary per this last objection. It's OR to assert that because of those two accolades Piett promoted him, since nothing ever says that. Piett could have promoted him because they were childhood friends for all we know. The P/T doesn't need further change in any manner, in my opinion. Those are perfectly legitimate "traits." Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies, Toprawa. I hadn't realized that you had changed the P&T in your copy-edit. As for the OR - well, it's been a while since I looked at the card, and I thought those two traits were mentioned as part of the reason for his promotion. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- As Tranner and I have discussed, he certainly owes me no apology. With all due respect to all parties here, I believe this final outstanding objection is really unnecessary, and may be taking the "Personality" portion of the section title too literal. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously, the P&T isn't going to get any better, because from what it seem, there is no more info. I would very much rather just take out the P&T, and those of you involved in this know that by now, but I will refrain from making this a bigger deal than it should be. The objection is struck, but I am still extremely unhappy with the way it was written, and disagree with the inclusion of a pointless P&T. Grand Moff Tranner, I apologize if I used your nom as something to use to argue against forced P&Ts, and I don't disrespect you at all for this, because you were just following the rules. DC 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- As Tranner and I have discussed, he certainly owes me no apology. With all due respect to all parties here, I believe this final outstanding objection is really unnecessary, and may be taking the "Personality" portion of the section title too literal. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies, Toprawa. I hadn't realized that you had changed the P&T in your copy-edit. As for the OR - well, it's been a while since I looked at the card, and I thought those two traits were mentioned as part of the reason for his promotion. Grand Moff Tranner
- I regret that I have to step into this, but I've reverted Tranner's latest edit to the P/T, which was very similar to how the section looked originally, before my copy-edit, and an edit that was just unnecessary per this last objection. It's OR to assert that because of those two accolades Piett promoted him, since nothing ever says that. Piett could have promoted him because they were childhood friends for all we know. The P/T doesn't need further change in any manner, in my opinion. Those are perfectly legitimate "traits." Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reworded it a bit. Grand Moff Tranner
- DC was on about this in #wookieepedia the other night. I'm of the opinion that a little rewording to highlight the character aspect of the information would make it much more acceptable, but otherwise, I don't believe that the very existence of the P&T can be objected to. There are rules asking for the information if it's available, and clearly there is information pertaining to what a P&T entails. There are not, however, rules stating that a P&T should not be included for any specific reason. Graestan(Talk) 04:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's no other info on him. And while there may not be anything on his personality, the P&T shows his traits. Grand Moff Tranner
Comments
- 631 words. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)