- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Tomio Ogata
- Nominated by: CometSmudge (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Went over because Older complimented them too much
- Date Archived: 05:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Final word count: 271 words (73 introduction, 198 body, 0 behind the scenes)
- Word count at nomination time: 271 words (73 introduction, 198 body, 0 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional): WP:Creators WP:THR
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support votes
- NanoLuukeCloning Facility 16:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
—spookywillowwtalk 23:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)- Lewisr (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Master Fredcerique
(talk) (he/him) 05:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Objections
NanoLuuke
I don't really see the point of providing quotes for the tweets without providing a translation. I think I recall having a discussion in the past about how to do this with OOM, and I'm pinged him about this on Discord.NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)- OOM wasn't able to provide with an example for this specific context, but I guess adding {{C|translation: }} after the tweets should do the trick. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 09:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense, I added translations CometSmudge (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- OOM wasn't able to provide with an example for this specific context, but I guess adding {{C|translation: }} after the tweets should do the trick. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 09:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- Do we really need to provide reference to pronouns for other people (in this case Daniel José Older) than the article's subject? I could see this practice being a bit cumbersome when done on larger article. It's not something I'm seing done on Peter Cushing, a recent FA, for example. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do want to point out that, while tedious, it definitely is done on lengthy IU FAs, even some over double the length of Peter Cushing. Tis fine if we chose to treat OOU and IU articles differently especially for now-deceased actors who wont have good pronoun cites I suppose (ie to refer to those folk by what referential material has rather than an explicit pronoun listing) but personally don’t think article length should be a determinant or factor in deciding which do since all articles IMO should have the same standards.—spookywillowwtalk 13:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not necessarily opposed, and you make great points. In fact, given that we should treat OOU with greater caution than IU (real people, after all), I don't have any argument against adding ref to pronouns more systematically. Is that something we should enshrine into policy? NanoLuukeCloning Facility 14:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- While not directly opposed, does seem unnecessary to me. Sourcing/Attribution policies cover that all information must be appropriately sourced anywhere onsite, which is also the same justification for sourcing IU pronouns separately as needed when, say, a book does not suppott a rank context, a date, pronouns, or anything else. The standard for doing it IU has been operating fine since early 2023, and OOU only has not seen it as much because of lack of SAs.—spookywillowwtalk 14:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Roger that. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 16:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- While not directly opposed, does seem unnecessary to me. Sourcing/Attribution policies cover that all information must be appropriately sourced anywhere onsite, which is also the same justification for sourcing IU pronouns separately as needed when, say, a book does not suppott a rank context, a date, pronouns, or anything else. The standard for doing it IU has been operating fine since early 2023, and OOU only has not seen it as much because of lack of SAs.—spookywillowwtalk 14:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not necessarily opposed, and you make great points. In fact, given that we should treat OOU with greater caution than IU (real people, after all), I don't have any argument against adding ref to pronouns more systematically. Is that something we should enshrine into policy? NanoLuukeCloning Facility 14:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do want to point out that, while tedious, it definitely is done on lengthy IU FAs, even some over double the length of Peter Cushing. Tis fine if we chose to treat OOU and IU articles differently especially for now-deceased actors who wont have good pronoun cites I suppose (ie to refer to those folk by what referential material has rather than an explicit pronoun listing) but personally don’t think article length should be a determinant or factor in deciding which do since all articles IMO should have the same standards.—spookywillowwtalk 13:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 05:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)