Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Star Wars Fanon Wiki


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

Star Wars Fanon Wiki

 * Nomination by: --Victor talk 04:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Per that one guy. It's nice.

(0 Inqs/0 users/0 total)
Support
 * 1)  After some updating and tweaking of the wording, I'm fairly happy that the article is quality stuff, even if the topic might be controversial to some.  Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 18:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *This vote was struck by Atarumaster88, not because of a lack of quality of the article, but by request of others who voiced opinions about a perceived conflict of interest with regards to this article. To prevent any strife or incorrect views, I have struck this vote. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 16:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * There is no cabal. --Victor talk 04:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Er...do you have Ataru's permission to nominate this? Because he's the one who worked on it.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone can nominate any article on Wookieepedia for FA. As it is, I don't care. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 20:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to fix any objections that arise, though? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone better, since this is going to be torturous. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Muahaha... of course I'll fix it. I was just away for the weekend but now I've returned. Lay it on me, Wookieepedia. --Victor talk 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, I generally update this article once a month, but will try and kick that up to once every two weeks or so during its FAN. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 18:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So now Inqs are getting other people to nominate their articles so they can vote for them? I'm so glad to see Ataru's high principles in action. Havac 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While I might not agree with the spirit of Havac's post, he has a point, and this goes against the general principle of the no-nominator Inqvote. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I never had any plans to nominate this for FA. I've said that numerous times on IRC. Vic asked me about it, and I said that I didn't mind if he nominated it, but I did agree to help him with it. If you guys would like, I can defer from voting on this article. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think that would be best in keeping with the spirit of not voting for one's own work -- which I never had a problem with, but the no-nominator-vote policy is policy and this seems like a bit of an end run around it. I'd hate to see a precedent for exploiting such a loophole. Havac 01:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done so, but in the future, it would be better to not jump to wrong conclusions. I didn't think it would be a problem when I voted, but I see how it could be perceived wrongly. I do wonder what this will mean for co-projects, though, particularly ones where multiply Inquisitors have worked on the project. Should they all be expected to defer on voting? Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 16:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I did with Jorj Car'das, and I think if it's a two- or three-person project it should be expected. For things like Project Wormhead I don't think it would be such an issue, since most participants are only likely to have written a small enough portion of the article. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (Inq only)


 * 1) Per request from nominator. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Kill Star Wars Fanon. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Quite frankly, it's a much longer article than the wiki deserves as a fan site, and furthermore verifiability becomes an issue with wiki pages being cited.  Graestan ( Talk ) 22:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Sarah Palin-approved Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Per GT, but with the note that subject isn't and shouldn't be an issue. I don't think any of the other oppose votes are because of that, I just want it noted on the record, particularly in regards to setting precedents. - Lord Hydronium 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)