Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Isolder
Isolder
- Status: Featured Article (other options are "featured article", "former featured article", and "article")
Support
- .... 01:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- StarNeptuneTalk to me! 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lord Hydronium 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nice. Very nice. Better than some of my pet FAs IMHO. Atarumaster88
(Audience Chamber) 00:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC) - Cull Tremayne 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tinwe 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove nomination
- Vote here
Things to do
Good on everything but sourcing. - Lord Hydronium 07:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)- I thought we were going to avoid nitpicking on a rule that was introduced post-nomination. .... 08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that it had been introduced after. It doesn't seem like it should be that hard to source, and I think it would be good if we made it a point to have all new articles in the queue meet the requirements already, rather than scramble to fix some of them later. - Lord Hydronium 08:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I sourced it. I'm still getting used to these tags, so if I screwed up, please let me know so I can correct myself in the future.StarNeptuneTalk to me! 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. - Lord Hydronium 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Slight suggestion. Can we get the paragraphs sourced rather than the headings? Otherwise the table of contents looks very wacky... QuentinGeorge 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Arrrggghh. We implemented that to lessen up on the excessive coding caused by para by para cites on sections that are all sourced from the same place. Atarumaster88 (Audience Chamber) 06:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can't we just source at the end of a block of text? Specifically on the heading looks awful, you'd have to agree. QuentinGeorge 06:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Quentin, and I don't think we'd need to source every para; maybe every other paragraph or so, so people can find the source without going all the way to the end of a section, but it still avoids clutter. I really don't see why every paragraph is necessary anyway; we don't need to do every sentence when there are multiple citations within a paragraph, after all. Perhaps this would better be discussed in one of the Sourcing threads, though. - Lord Hydronium 06:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I will strongly oppose any more changes to the sourcing rules. It's already a huge pain as it is. If we change it again, it will be even more confusing and more work. Para by para cites unless multiple sources are cited in one para is what I'm using for now + heading cites if the whole section is from one para. Atarumaster88 (Audience Chamber) 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- A statement in the thread about sourcing makes me want to clarify myself: I'm fine with this going to FA as is; it's within the rules, and I've given my vote for it. I'm just stating my thoughts on the general sourcing policy. I don't want it to seem like I'm objecting to this article in particular or holding it up from going into queue. - Lord Hydronium 08:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I will strongly oppose any more changes to the sourcing rules. It's already a huge pain as it is. If we change it again, it will be even more confusing and more work. Para by para cites unless multiple sources are cited in one para is what I'm using for now + heading cites if the whole section is from one para. Atarumaster88
- I agree with Quentin, and I don't think we'd need to source every para; maybe every other paragraph or so, so people can find the source without going all the way to the end of a section, but it still avoids clutter. I really don't see why every paragraph is necessary anyway; we don't need to do every sentence when there are multiple citations within a paragraph, after all. Perhaps this would better be discussed in one of the Sourcing threads, though. - Lord Hydronium 06:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can't we just source at the end of a block of text? Specifically on the heading looks awful, you'd have to agree. QuentinGeorge 06:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Arrrggghh. We implemented that to lessen up on the excessive coding caused by para by para cites on sections that are all sourced from the same place. Atarumaster88
- Slight suggestion. Can we get the paragraphs sourced rather than the headings? Otherwise the table of contents looks very wacky... QuentinGeorge 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. - Lord Hydronium 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I thought we were going to avoid nitpicking on a rule that was introduced post-nomination. .... 08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Take the quotes out of the middle of the personality section. If possible, find some more for the rest of the sections. Havac 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is that an objection or just an idea for general cleanup? I ask because as it is, there's only one outstanding objection. - Lord Hydronium 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- A thing to do. Should be done before it's featured, because it shouldn't be that hard to do, but I'm not going to derail it if it doesn't get done. Havac 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is that an objection or just an idea for general cleanup? I ask because as it is, there's only one outstanding objection. - Lord Hydronium 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of FA status
- We would vote here. Currently N/A for this article
Strike Objection
- List an objection here. Be specific. Quote the objection.
Objection 1
Remove
Keep