- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Shanatka-Lo
- Nominated by: Cade
Calrayn 18:18, October 8, 2013 (UTC) - Nomination comments: Project Hero
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:51, October 16, 2013 (UTC)- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:06, November 2, 2013 (UTC)
MasterFred(Whatever) 06:11, November 3, 2013 (UTC)- Menkooroo (talk) 01:12, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Supreme Emperor (talk) 05:33, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
Object
Voss
Perhaps nitpicky, but the second sentence of the bio reads as if every member of the Voss species becomes a Voss mystic. Can you rephrase it to indicate that the Mystics are unique, maybe referring to the group by its full name?- Done.
The infobox and the intro both assert that she lived and died well before 3641 BBY, but the biography uses the more vague "sometime before." Can you reconcile the three?- Done.
Can you mention the dark side outside of the intro?- Done.
Is the one-sentence equipment section necessary? The Layout Guide does note that it "can" be used and isn't mandatory, and adding an entirely new section for a single sentence seems like overkill. I recommend just merging that info with the P&T; it's as much of a "trait" as are hair and eye colour.Menkooroo (talk) 04:21, November 5, 2013 (UTC)- I personally agree, but it was requested other users. Cade Calrayn 04:33, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- If you think so and a reviewer thinks so, then there's definitely a case to remove it. Two short sections in a row is a clunky eyesore and doesn't actually add anything to the article --- if you note that information in the P&T, readers will still understand that it's her equipment and not some weird aspect of her personality. The Layout Guide is flexible enough to allow this; go for it! Menkooroo (talk) 04:37, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that apparel is neither a personality nor a trait, so it doesn't belong under such a heading unless the information can directly be tied back to a character's personality, for example, which is not the case here. The Layout Guide stipulates an "Equipment" section if applicable, which is exceedingly more appropriate for this information than the P/T. The length of a given section should never be a determining factor for whether the section should be included or not, and it's certainly not justification for sticking information into a section where it doesn't belong. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 08:25, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- The length of a section absolutely should be a determining factor for its inclusion --- one-sentence sections aren't just an eyesore, they're useless. A single sentence isn't enough to justify an entirely separate section, and we shouldn't be setting a precedent for one-sentence equipment sections that say nothing beyond "This character wore clothes." That's just good sense. Equipment sections should be reserved for actual equipment. As I said above, what clothing someone wears is no less a trait than their hair or eye colour, which we've been putting into the P&T for a couple of years now. If you want to bring this to the Senate Hall, it might be worth examining as a community, but there's currently no policy stopping Cade from following years of precedent and merging the two sections if he wants to. Menkooroo (talk) 08:43, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- There is also no policy whatsoever supporting what you're attempting to enforce here through a formal objection. Namely, folding information from one section into another because you don't like the way a one-sentence paragraph looks. Aside from the fact that this objection is therefore wholly invalid, you've touched on the root of the problem here: that we've been largely ignoring the Equipment section for many years, instead misguidedly placing this information into the P/T, where it does not belong. You speak of some kind of "precedent" that exists, but what it really is is outward ignorance of how and when to use the Equipment section. You can go through many status articles, mostly older ones, and find that people regularly stick mentions of armor, weapons, etc. into the P/T, which is simply an incorrect practice, according to the LG. The fact that the Equipment section might be as brief as one sentence is no more a reason to not use the section than it is to not include a Biography or P/T because it only has a single sentence. We don't control how much information a source does or does not give us, all we can do is appropriately section what info we do have according to the LG's guidelines, extent of information notwithstanding. Now, I personally disagree with your assertion that clothes are automatically a "trait," because not every character wears apparel that is necessarily indicative of his personality or physical composition. A character's apparel often includes military uniforms and the like, which is more closely linked to armor (and therefore equipment) than it is to someone's personality, and which is why I believe the information naturally belongs in Equipment. If we need a larger community discussion of how to divide up this information in an article, so be it, but you really shouldn't be holding an article hostage with an objection that has no formal grounding. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:20, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Your assessment of what's happening here is way off. I'm in no way holding this article "hostage" --- Cade himself has expressed a preference for folding the information into the P&T, and I'm supporting his desire to do so. As I've already stated, the LG includes the word "can" for the equipment section, stressing that it's optional. I find the idea of adding an equipment section that says nothing more than "This character wore clothes" to be ridiculous, and eight years of precedent seems to agree with me. You don't have the power to unilaterally declare that every article needs to do that, and if Cade doesn't want to include it in this article, then the choice is his. If someone wants to include such an equipment section, then they can, but they should by no means be forced to --- according to the LG, it's optional. Again, I'm not holding anything hostage here. I'm leaving the choice up to Cade and waiting for him to comment and make that choice. Menkooroo (talk) 00:45, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
- There is also no policy whatsoever supporting what you're attempting to enforce here through a formal objection. Namely, folding information from one section into another because you don't like the way a one-sentence paragraph looks. Aside from the fact that this objection is therefore wholly invalid, you've touched on the root of the problem here: that we've been largely ignoring the Equipment section for many years, instead misguidedly placing this information into the P/T, where it does not belong. You speak of some kind of "precedent" that exists, but what it really is is outward ignorance of how and when to use the Equipment section. You can go through many status articles, mostly older ones, and find that people regularly stick mentions of armor, weapons, etc. into the P/T, which is simply an incorrect practice, according to the LG. The fact that the Equipment section might be as brief as one sentence is no more a reason to not use the section than it is to not include a Biography or P/T because it only has a single sentence. We don't control how much information a source does or does not give us, all we can do is appropriately section what info we do have according to the LG's guidelines, extent of information notwithstanding. Now, I personally disagree with your assertion that clothes are automatically a "trait," because not every character wears apparel that is necessarily indicative of his personality or physical composition. A character's apparel often includes military uniforms and the like, which is more closely linked to armor (and therefore equipment) than it is to someone's personality, and which is why I believe the information naturally belongs in Equipment. If we need a larger community discussion of how to divide up this information in an article, so be it, but you really shouldn't be holding an article hostage with an objection that has no formal grounding. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:20, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- The length of a section absolutely should be a determining factor for its inclusion --- one-sentence sections aren't just an eyesore, they're useless. A single sentence isn't enough to justify an entirely separate section, and we shouldn't be setting a precedent for one-sentence equipment sections that say nothing beyond "This character wore clothes." That's just good sense. Equipment sections should be reserved for actual equipment. As I said above, what clothing someone wears is no less a trait than their hair or eye colour, which we've been putting into the P&T for a couple of years now. If you want to bring this to the Senate Hall, it might be worth examining as a community, but there's currently no policy stopping Cade from following years of precedent and merging the two sections if he wants to. Menkooroo (talk) 08:43, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that apparel is neither a personality nor a trait, so it doesn't belong under such a heading unless the information can directly be tied back to a character's personality, for example, which is not the case here. The Layout Guide stipulates an "Equipment" section if applicable, which is exceedingly more appropriate for this information than the P/T. The length of a given section should never be a determining factor for whether the section should be included or not, and it's certainly not justification for sticking information into a section where it doesn't belong. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 08:25, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- If you think so and a reviewer thinks so, then there's definitely a case to remove it. Two short sections in a row is a clunky eyesore and doesn't actually add anything to the article --- if you note that information in the P&T, readers will still understand that it's her equipment and not some weird aspect of her personality. The Layout Guide is flexible enough to allow this; go for it! Menkooroo (talk) 04:37, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I personally agree, but it was requested other users. Cade
- Looking at the Layout Guide, I'm seeing the "can" as "if there is available information that can go in that section." So, despite the way the small section looks, I'm going to agree with Tope on this one—we have articles with single-sentence History/Biographies, and even single-sentence intros when there's only a small amount of canon information. Cade Calrayn 01:09, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 01:40, November 11, 2013 (UTC)