Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Unidentified Janguine species


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

Unidentified Janguine species

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 01:24, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments:.

(3 ECs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
 * 1) Easy read.  Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 18:06, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Full support; however, I'm not fond of that speculative clause in the BTS and you should probably say why 3PO's theory was groundless in the ref. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 02:46, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Darth Morrt 21:01, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Stick to your day job, Threepio. ~ SavageBob 18:07, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Menkooroo 17:00, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  1358  (Talk)  18:39, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * Shouldn't the Source section list only the title of the source, per LG? Or the {CSWECite} is an exception, like many other source templates? Darth Morrt 02:02, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. 1358  (Talk)  18:46, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I remove my support. The AoC (chapter 8) states that the 3PO's idea "led nowhere." IMO it is not necessary groundless, just didn't bring the NR closer to the origin of the YV. The Janguine barbars could be the degraded descendants of an early YV scouting party. I know this is speculation, but neither of the sources state that the relation is groundless. Darth Morrt 04:23, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * This one is not a real objection, but in case of novels, I prefer chapter numbers to page number, because the page numbers differ in various editions. What do you think? Darth Morrt 04:23, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please remove the page numbers from the CSWECite templates in the Sources section. We don't state page numbers for other items in the sources section, either. Just leave the parameter blank. :-) 1358  (Talk)  18:46, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the page number for VP. Now only AoC is missing, and I will see what I can do with that one. However, my preference is always to go with more detailed references than less detailed. --Eyrezer 03:38, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like I misinterpreted your objection. I gather that Master Jonathon has fixed it while responding to another objection. --Eyrezer 03:48, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give a bit of background as to why 3PO's speculation was proved groundless? Other than that, looks good. ~ SavageBob 02:50, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Eyrezer 03:38, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel like CSWE should only be listed once in the "Sources" section. Listing the same book twice sets a really bad precedent, where any article on a major subject like Obi-Wan Kenobi or Galactic Empire would have to list the CSWE dozens of times in the "Sources" section, as those subjects are mentioned in countless individual entries. It would also be like listing The Unknown Regions dozens of times in the "Sources" section of Unknown Regions, as Unknown Regions are mentioned in every section of the book. Both relevant CSWE entries for this article are referenced and appear in "Notes and references", so it's not like the article would be sacrificing any info, either. Or you could jettison the CSWEcite template and just use to note both entries. Either way, the current double-listing of CSWE just seems... wrong. Menkooroo 04:17, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at combining them into one, see if that works for you. Eyrezer, feel free to yell at me or change it to something else if you don't like that. :P  Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 04:31, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's perfect. Whaddya think, Eyre? I'm not crazy for thinking that we shouldn't list the same source twice, am I? Menkooroo 05:06, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. --Eyrezer 11:11, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hooray! I guess that takes care of Xd's objection too. Menkooroo 17:00, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comments