Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Wish You Among the Stars

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Wish You Among the Stars

  • Nominated by: ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:49, March 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Comprehensive article nomination that got too long. The original nomination can be found here. The following previously unanswered objections are copied over and I have made responses. Both were by Exiled Jedi:
  • Is Plexo-33 stated to be a band in the source?
    • Well, actually, no. It's a band in Legends and so I guess we've just sort of been rolling with the idea that it's a band in canon also, but it really doesn't specify such detail. Shall we just ditch that detail then and keep things vague about them?
      • Nothing should be assumed to be the same in Canon as it was in Legends.
        • Removed all references to them being a band, except in the Behind the scenes section. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:49, March 30, 2015 (UTC)


  • Does the source state whether Plexo-33 created the song or just performed it?
    • Nope, which was why I was purposely vague and simply said that it was "by" them.
      • You state that they performed the song in the BTS.
        • Modified to state that it was either performed or written by them. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:49, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:51, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:13, July 1, 2015 (UTC)
  3. 501st dogma(talk) 17:01, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:32, July 13, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:01, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • Lots of intro exclusive information that needs to be included in the body. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:51, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
  • Try and avoid saying either played or written by, just use the wording from the book. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:51, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed to state that it was simply "by" them. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:43, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • There should not be any references in the intro. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 11:03, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, of course. Removed those references and moved the supporting information on the dating to the body, along with some additional details to clarify the point. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:10, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
501st
  • The time part about LY should be in the body too.
  • Release date in the infobox should say "By 3272 LY" or "By 5 years prior to the battle of Yavin."
    • Added to the infobox. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:43, June 27, 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think it might be better to go with years prior to Yavin in the infobox, as Brandon is right about the reader having to actively search what LY is to understand the timeframe. 501st dogma(talk) 13:11, June 27, 2015 (UTC)
        • Alright, makes sense to me. I changed the infobox to the Battle of Yavin based date. Also, I said "well before" because the song is described is an "oldie," which means that it had obviously been in circulation for a fair amount of time before then. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:10, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
          • Sounds good. 501st dogma(talk) 17:01, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
  • In the BTS, "the band that was known for it.." should be removed, as it isn't confirmed as a band in canon. You can probably get around it if you specifically say that Plexo was a band in Legends. 501st dogma(talk) 14:18, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
Floyd
  • One person not liking it is not notable enough to put in the intro, especially when it's just some random person. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:51, July 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • To piggyback on the "By 3272 LY" objection above by 501st dogma, Battle of Yavin is not contextually relevant whatsoever to this article. Lothal Year is because it is contextually relevant to the character who heard it and she lived on Lothal. Instead of the BBY context in the body, it should be LY context, and Battle of Yavin should be removed entirely from the article. I know we're used to always using BBY for referencing years, but again, in-universe, it's contextually irrelevant and context cannot be added for it without getting WAY off topic. So yeah, TL;DR BBY is only relevant to us from an out-of-universe standpoint (not relevant to article), LY is completely relevant both out-of-universe and in-universe. Squishy Vic | message 16:56, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Lothal Year is something that's only in one source and that pretty much no one knows about/understands. If you have to click through to another page to understand it, and then have to do math to understand it even further, then that's way too much for a reader. The Battle of Yavin, contextually relevant or not, is what people have come to expect, it's what people understand, and it's important to maintain a basic level of consistency in articles for readers. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:27, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I have to agree with Brandon on this one, Squishy. I think both are relevant here. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:43, June 27, 2015 (UTC)
  • Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 03:21, July 21, 2015 (UTC)