- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Unidentified planet 1 (Dilonexa system)
- Nominated by: NaruHina Talk
23:04, September 6, 2011 (UTC) - Nomination comments: Fear not, for I won't lay seige to the GAN just yet. Learned my lesson for once! :3
(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)
Support
IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 23:59, September 15, 2011 (UTC)- --Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 16:47, September 29, 2011 (UTC) 
—Tommy 9281 Sunday, October 9, 2011, 19:33 UTC- Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:52, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 11:27, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
Object
Floyd:
On a quick look, the extensive history of the Centrality is really not needed in the History, at least of that length. Although it describes the sector the planet is in, it really doesn't have much to do with the planet itself.- Only that isn't an indepth history of the Centrality. It's specific and limited to which entities controlled the sector and, therefore, at least had the alleigance of the space around this barren planet. Just because there happen to be several recorded years in which the Centrality sector switched hands does not make that information any less relevant than if we only had the Centrality's establishment as an independent nation for inclusion in the article. That said, the part of the article I see as somewhat extraneous is specifying and naming the Scrivinirs in power (still mentioning the switch from an Imperial Scrivinir to a local one after Gepta's death), as the area still belonged to the Centrality itself. If you want me to remove that, I'll do so in a heartbeat. NaruHina Talk 02:21, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
- That section is purely fluff. None of the information present there is relevant to this planet at all. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 14:32, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
- I assure you it isn't fluff. Remember I was wanting this to be a CA. Pretty badly. It's relevant to this planet because it shows who had control over the territory the planet was in. Rather than wait for the response, I'm just going to take out the names. NaruHina Talk 04:56, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- If the Atlas territorial information is fluff, then why is it present in Ord Lithone, Nigel VI, and Begeren? (There are fewer status articles on planets than the other sections. These are all 2010 articles. Most current planet GAs passed before that.) More reference battles denoted on the war maps (such as Fedje or Nouane) and the exploration dates are included in even more than that. If you want me to say "this planet's general area of space" (as in Ord Lithone) rather than "the Centrality" in the article, I can make that change. Another option would be Begeren's method, a list in the Description, but that's a stretch of that section's intended scope. The maps are canon and therefore their information requisites inclusion in the articles. Again, just because all we know about this particular planet is in sum 1)that it was a fireball, 2)who controlled its territory, and 3)when they controlled it, does not mean that the territory information should be left out. In fact, our mandate to include minutae in articles calls for the opposite. What we need to be doing is checking the Atlas for this information on the current GAs so they're up to date and complete. NaruHina Talk 05:55, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Other planet articles actually have historical details about the planet itself, which is supplemented by information from the Atlas. An article's History section should not be solely comprised of generalized information about who controlled the region of space in which the planet was located. There is no unique information on this planet, and, therefore, the vast majority of the History section is irrelevant fluff that needs to be removed. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 20:44, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- These are historical details and they're completely relevant because they show who controlled the region of space it was in. It's solely comprised of that information because there is no other information on the planet. Please humor me for a moment and pretend, for the sake of argument, that this were a populated planet. The section in the LG on planets des not make a distinction between populated or barren planets, which means they must be treated the same. If it were populated, there would likely be more information for inclusion (hell, any at all), if even just "Luke visited the planet before he became the Jedi Grand Master." If we knew this hypothetical planet's coordinates, we would look to the political, military, and the expansion maps to include the applicable information without any fuss. The article would be decried as incomplete without it (as this particular article was on the CAN page). This information would be added in addition to the blurb on Luke, a situation roughly expressible as 1+1=2. In this unidentified planet's case, there are just no known happennings on the planet itself, so it's 1+0=1. Not 1+0=0. NaruHina Talk 23:26, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- The fact remains that all of that information is about the Centrality, not this planet. Had any of those governments actually used the world in any capacity, then the inclusion of that information would be warranted. But that's not the case, and therefore the irrelevant information needs to go. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 14:26, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the use of the name "Centrality" is only a convenience, as the name of the sector containing this planet. The use of that word describes "the general area of space where this planet resided" in a short, not noticeably repetitive phrase and, again, I'll happily change it to the longer way if you ask. The only times refernece is specifically (probably read: intentionally) made to the Centrality government is when it founded itself containing this planet and when it swore itself over to the Empire, thus swearing this planet to the Empire. It counts as an entity controlling the planet when it's independent. Furthermore, it doesn't particularly matter if the galactic governments in question utilized the planet or not: you likely own at least one book that you've never read, but that doesn't mean you don't own it. Personally, I don't really care if this goes back to the CAN. I'll be a tad annoyed for obvious reasons, but I'll get over it once Unidentified planet 39 passes. Nonetheless, first I think more people should weigh in, so it's not two people arguing in a circle. To the IRC! NaruHina Talk 00:24, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
- If the planet is a Centrality world then I think that this information is necessary. The Sharu might have had control over this planet, but you can tell for certain, so says that the Sharu controlled the sector gives the reader information that says who likely controlled the planet. It does it without speculating, giving only verifiable information. The same goes for saying the Republic explored the sector between 3,956 BBY and 3,000 BBY, it gives a time where the planet was brought to the attention of the galaxy at large. The part about the governments in control of the sector is neccessary because if the government was in control over the sector, in all likelyhood they controlled this planet or at least who came and went. The section needs to be worded ambigously, because it is never confirmed but only implied through maps stating control of the sector that the listed governments controlled this planet. To use an analogy, if you control an entire country then you have at least indirect control over every city in that country even if you do not have anyone there you still have control in principle. The same is true for the sector, if a government controlled the sector then they had at least indirect control over this planet, which in my opinion needs to be mentioned. In short, this section gives viable information as clearly as is possible without speculation. What does everyone think of this reasoning?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 21:32, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
- It's been filed down to an acceptable level. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 23:59, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
- If the planet is a Centrality world then I think that this information is necessary. The Sharu might have had control over this planet, but you can tell for certain, so says that the Sharu controlled the sector gives the reader information that says who likely controlled the planet. It does it without speculating, giving only verifiable information. The same goes for saying the Republic explored the sector between 3,956 BBY and 3,000 BBY, it gives a time where the planet was brought to the attention of the galaxy at large. The part about the governments in control of the sector is neccessary because if the government was in control over the sector, in all likelyhood they controlled this planet or at least who came and went. The section needs to be worded ambigously, because it is never confirmed but only implied through maps stating control of the sector that the listed governments controlled this planet. To use an analogy, if you control an entire country then you have at least indirect control over every city in that country even if you do not have anyone there you still have control in principle. The same is true for the sector, if a government controlled the sector then they had at least indirect control over this planet, which in my opinion needs to be mentioned. In short, this section gives viable information as clearly as is possible without speculation. What does everyone think of this reasoning?--Exiled Jedi
- Again, the use of the name "Centrality" is only a convenience, as the name of the sector containing this planet. The use of that word describes "the general area of space where this planet resided" in a short, not noticeably repetitive phrase and, again, I'll happily change it to the longer way if you ask. The only times refernece is specifically (probably read: intentionally) made to the Centrality government is when it founded itself containing this planet and when it swore itself over to the Empire, thus swearing this planet to the Empire. It counts as an entity controlling the planet when it's independent. Furthermore, it doesn't particularly matter if the galactic governments in question utilized the planet or not: you likely own at least one book that you've never read, but that doesn't mean you don't own it. Personally, I don't really care if this goes back to the CAN. I'll be a tad annoyed for obvious reasons, but I'll get over it once Unidentified planet 39 passes. Nonetheless, first I think more people should weigh in, so it's not two people arguing in a circle. To the IRC! NaruHina Talk
- The fact remains that all of that information is about the Centrality, not this planet. Had any of those governments actually used the world in any capacity, then the inclusion of that information would be warranted. But that's not the case, and therefore the irrelevant information needs to go. Grand Moff Tranner
- These are historical details and they're completely relevant because they show who controlled the region of space it was in. It's solely comprised of that information because there is no other information on the planet. Please humor me for a moment and pretend, for the sake of argument, that this were a populated planet. The section in the LG on planets des not make a distinction between populated or barren planets, which means they must be treated the same. If it were populated, there would likely be more information for inclusion (hell, any at all), if even just "Luke visited the planet before he became the Jedi Grand Master." If we knew this hypothetical planet's coordinates, we would look to the political, military, and the expansion maps to include the applicable information without any fuss. The article would be decried as incomplete without it (as this particular article was on the CAN page). This information would be added in addition to the blurb on Luke, a situation roughly expressible as 1+1=2. In this unidentified planet's case, there are just no known happennings on the planet itself, so it's 1+0=1. Not 1+0=0. NaruHina Talk
- Other planet articles actually have historical details about the planet itself, which is supplemented by information from the Atlas. An article's History section should not be solely comprised of generalized information about who controlled the region of space in which the planet was located. There is no unique information on this planet, and, therefore, the vast majority of the History section is irrelevant fluff that needs to be removed. Grand Moff Tranner
- If the Atlas territorial information is fluff, then why is it present in Ord Lithone, Nigel VI, and Begeren? (There are fewer status articles on planets than the other sections. These are all 2010 articles. Most current planet GAs passed before that.) More reference battles denoted on the war maps (such as Fedje or Nouane) and the exploration dates are included in even more than that. If you want me to say "this planet's general area of space" (as in Ord Lithone) rather than "the Centrality" in the article, I can make that change. Another option would be Begeren's method, a list in the Description, but that's a stretch of that section's intended scope. The maps are canon and therefore their information requisites inclusion in the articles. Again, just because all we know about this particular planet is in sum 1)that it was a fireball, 2)who controlled its territory, and 3)when they controlled it, does not mean that the territory information should be left out. In fact, our mandate to include minutae in articles calls for the opposite. What we need to be doing is checking the Atlas for this information on the current GAs so they're up to date and complete. NaruHina Talk
- I assure you it isn't fluff. Remember I was wanting this to be a CA. Pretty badly. It's relevant to this planet because it shows who had control over the territory the planet was in. Rather than wait for the response, I'm just going to take out the names. NaruHina Talk
- That section is purely fluff. None of the information present there is relevant to this planet at all. Grand Moff Tranner
- Only that isn't an indepth history of the Centrality. It's specific and limited to which entities controlled the sector and, therefore, at least had the alleigance of the space around this barren planet. Just because there happen to be several recorded years in which the Centrality sector switched hands does not make that information any less relevant than if we only had the Centrality's establishment as an independent nation for inclusion in the article. That said, the part of the article I see as somewhat extraneous is specifying and naming the Scrivinirs in power (still mentioning the switch from an Imperial Scrivinir to a local one after Gepta's death), as the area still belonged to the Centrality itself. If you want me to remove that, I'll do so in a heartbeat. NaruHina Talk
- More to come, possibly. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:36, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Unidentified Cal 1 (America system)
Just for starters, the intro shouldn't be sourced according to this rule.You'll need to add The Essential Atlas to the Sources list since you have info from TEA in the article and BTS.- The planet itself is not mentioned in the Atlas. Only astrographical information pertaining to the Dilonexa system was used in the article, as noted in the ref. NaruHina Talk 16:48, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me that it should at least get an Indirect Mention Only.--Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 22:32, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Not in this case. This is the article on the planet, not the system. The other sources are listed because they actually mention the planets of the Dilonexa system in their prose. Consider the Online Appendix: should we list that under the sources for a planet that happens to be in a system on the list? No. NaruHina Talk 23:40, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
- You have TCSWE down as a source though, so I think that you need to explain in the BTS better that the planet was indirectly mentioned in TCSWE and was not mentioned in TEA, but that you got info from it. Something to that effect so it's more easier to understand than what it is right now.--Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 13:05, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
- The CSWE was on there because it actually referenced there bein 40 planets in the system whereas the Atlas does not. Is this specific enough? NaruHina Talk 15:47, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Much more clear.--Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 16:46, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Much more clear.--Cal Jedi
- The CSWE was on there because it actually referenced there bein 40 planets in the system whereas the Atlas does not. Is this specific enough? NaruHina Talk
- You have TCSWE down as a source though, so I think that you need to explain in the BTS better that the planet was indirectly mentioned in TCSWE and was not mentioned in TEA, but that you got info from it. Something to that effect so it's more easier to understand than what it is right now.--Cal Jedi
- Not in this case. This is the article on the planet, not the system. The other sources are listed because they actually mention the planets of the Dilonexa system in their prose. Consider the Online Appendix: should we list that under the sources for a planet that happens to be in a system on the list? No. NaruHina Talk
- Seems to me that it should at least get an Indirect Mention Only.--Cal Jedi
- The planet itself is not mentioned in the Atlas. Only astrographical information pertaining to the Dilonexa system was used in the article, as noted in the ref. NaruHina Talk
- I'll delve more into it later. --Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 15:20, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
"Kick the football, Charlie Brown..."
"A Centrality world was the first of forty planets in the Dilonexa system" makes it seem like a "centrality" is some sort of planetary phenomena. It should be made clear that the Centrality is if you are going to mention it at all."The part of the galaxy containing the planet was once controlled by the Sharu species's civilization, which was active from around 30,000 BBY until 25,200 BBY, before extensive galactic exploration." Before extensive galactic exploration by whom?"By 1004 BBY, the area had fallen under the influence of the Sith, though the faction was mostly dissolved at the end of the New Sith Wars, in 1000 BBY." That faction of Sith was totally dissolved, not mostly."the Centrality planets swore allegiance to the new regime, though the Hutts still remained largely in power." You don't make it previously clear that the Hutts regained control after the Sith.- —Tommy 9281 Sunday, October 9, 2011, 18:51 UTC
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 11:27, October 18, 2011 (UTC)