Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Yeb Yeb Adem'thorn


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Yeb Yeb Adem'thorn

 * Nominated by: Thefourdotelipsis 23:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Even more compelling.

(4 ACs/2 Users/6 Total)
Support
 * 1) Hooray for TPM minors. 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Vote! Vote!--Skippy Farlstendoiro 08:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) He's not a crook. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  Graestan ( Talk ) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Toprawa:
 * 2) * There's no reason why a P/T can't be included here, touching on some very solid material: a) he moved to a luxurious home on Coruscant, which exhibits his taste for wealth, whether you can explicitly state that or not; b) he opposed the taxation of trade routes, showing him to be in the minority of the Senate's decision; and c) he supported the Vote of No Confidence. These are really plain-as-pudding type things. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) **But I've already told you those things in the bio. And he might not have a taste for wealth, it might have been a gift, it might have been out of necessity. That's made up, or worse, OR. I've already stated everything that's known about that. We clearly already know that he's in the minority on the Senate's decision, because the bill passed, which I state in the bio already. And...yes, he supported the Vote of No Confidence. That he did. And it could have been for any number of reasons. I can't really say anything else on the matter because there's actually nothing else left to say. Thefourdotelipsis 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Right, and I'd like to see it reiterated in the P/T to reflect his personality. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for his doing these things since we can't name them. But you can still mention them and assert a claim without necessarily saying the reason behind it. I know what OR is, so kindly refrain from lecturing me about that. The difference is that you don't have to present this in OR at all. Living in luxury is a pretty brazen reflection on anyone. And, voting no-confidence on your Galactic Leader is a solid insight into anyone's mind. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) ****So, you want me to say the exact, precise, same thing again, switch around some of the words, and put it under a new header saying personality and traits? Essentially a repeat of selected parts of the bio? Some parts of which might not actually reflect his personality at all, but we're just assuming that it does? That strikes me as awfully redundant, and utterly pointless. Almost as if I have to make a Personality and traits section for the sake of one being there, as opposed to one actually presenting something new about the character. Thefourdotelipsis 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) P&T. This one is no Grebleips. You can't say someone "strongly opposed" anything without it giving information about their character. As for the luxury, you don't have to word it in an OR fashion. It says enough on its own. As far as the "it's already been said" argument goes, there are hundreds of articles of status that have repeated information in the P&T. The trick is actually using nuance to highlight the qualities.  Graestan ( Talk ) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) *Whoops, I'm afraid I made a little embellishment there, my fault. He didn't "strongly" oppose the taxation, he just plain opposed it. Sorry for the oversight there, but I've rectified it now. Thefourdotelipsis 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) *If I can just stick my head into this for a second...He was also apparently accused of corruption. That is most definitely P&T material, even if it's only someone else's view. His supporting the vote of no confidence could/should also be mentioned, even if we don't know his motivations. As for your argument that it's just reiterating material in the bio, well, I can see some merit in it, but the rules at the top of the page say, "ideally include a 'personality and traits' section on all character articles if information is available," and there is material - however skimpy - available. So, in my opinion - and, like I said, I do somewhat agree with your view on these sorts of P&Ts (but not really this one in particular), but I also have misgivings or whatever about it - the only way to fully vindicate your position is to change the rules. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) **There is now a P/T present. Thefourdotelipsis 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) *** I thank you for adding the P/T, sir. I would prefer to at least see a minor mention of sorts of his luxurious living in the P/T, since I do believe that is solid enough to present as a reflection on his character and tastes. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) ****That is now in there also. Thefourdotelipsis 01:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) *****My appreciations. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments