Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Battle of T'olan (second nomination)

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

Battle of T'olan

• Nominated by: NaruHina ^Talk 10:10, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: This nomination was removed improperly. See comments for more details, or don't.

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

1. Nice work. Imperators II^(Talk) 09:28, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
2. Apologies if my derpiness caused the misunderstanding. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 12:56, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
   • It's K! It's not your fault I got heated. ^^ NaruHina ^Talk 15:45, August 26, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Ecks Dee

• I really feel like you should mention Kenobi's and Flume's dialogue in the Aftermath. You could probably remove "and Jedi General Obi-Wan Kenobi was aware of its reputation." from The battle and discuss that in the Aftermath instead. 1358 ^(Talk) 10:21, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. NaruHina ^Talk 10:48, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
• The part about the woman being a captain during the battle belongs in "The battle" rather than the prelude.
• I presume there are no more applicable quotes, such as the woman telling Flume that he can't come? 1358 ^(Talk) 13:35, December 1, 2019 (UTC)

Anil

• Could you please point me out the section of the novel that states the battle of T'olan was fought against the Confederacy? Just because a battle took place during the Clone Wars doesn't mean it was fought between the Republic and the Confederacy. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:18, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • You're right. Restricted their mention to context of the war and removed from the infobox. NaruHina ^Talk 20:55, July 28, 2019 (UTC)

Imp

• "Years had passed since the battle of T'olan, and Kenobi recalled its deadly reputation" — wouldn't a contrasting conjuncting like "yet" or something to that effect be more at home here?
  • Sure. NaruHina ^Talk 15:10, August 22, 2019 (UTC)
• What does the fact that the clones' genetic template was Fett have to with the subject of this article? We only need to know that the clone troopers were male and therefore Flume's mother couldn't have been one.
  • Because it unambiguously explains why they were all male. Yes, in a strictly minimalist sense, the fact that the one template was Fett, specifically, is not necessary for a complete explanation of why she could not have joined the GAR. However, "Those clones were all men sourced from one man, Fett" is complete and not ambiguous, while "Those clones were all men" is complete, but could imply that the GAR was excluding women for sexist reasons. Perhaps they were, but I'd prefer the explanation that doesn't rely on treating "all of them were cloned from Fett" as common knowledge to eschew that interpretation. NaruHina ^Talk 15:10, August 22, 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, good point. Imperators II^(Talk) 16:41, August 24, 2019 (UTC)
• You should probably wedge Jedi Commander somewhere in that paragraph, as well.
  • Added. NaruHina ^Talk 00:56, August 24, 2019 (UTC)
• The Warfare sentence also specifies that GAR's infantry was made up of clones. What about pilots and/or other branches? Imperators II^(Talk) 19:49, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • I incorporated that with "Nonetheless, there were non-clone branches of the Military fighting for the Republic, such as the Planetary Security Forces or the Judicials." The GAR was the infantry. The Navy was a separate branch of the Republic Military, and I could have included it in that list, but there is a section of Warfare that addresses this directly with these examples, so the sourcing could be more direct this way. NaruHina ^Talk 00:56, August 24, 2019 (UTC)
    • I was thinking more along the lines of the clone troopers who, say, piloted the LAATs or the Torrent fighters. Imperators II^(Talk) 16:41, August 24, 2019 (UTC)
      • It seems like there was no separate Air Force for ground missions? Warfare calls the LAAT "the iconic vehicle of the Grand Army" and says they cannot escape the atmosphere if launched on a planet, p. 80. The Torrent fighter article claims that the TCW film says that they're part of the Navy, which I can't imagine is correct sourcing because why would the movie say that? There was a Republic Starfighter Corps, but it was also a different branch of the Republic Military, separate from both the Grand Army and the Navy, per Warfare p. 95. Anyway, I've removed "infantry" from the sentence in this article because it was redundant. NaruHina ^Talk 18:31, August 25, 2019 (UTC)

Toprawa

• Fix redirect. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:46, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. NaruHina ^Talk 11:56, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Yes, I am renominating immediately. I find this situation very disappointing. I pushed back slightly on objections from an AgriCorps member and those sat for days open for commentary from others, but a motion from that same AgriCorps member to remove the nomination based on an objection from someone else who supported the article got voted through within 10 minutes? Seriously? I am not trying to be difficult, but this is the sort of scenario that makes contributing to Wookieepedia feel bad. NaruHina ^Talk 10:10, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • Your nomination was not removed due to Anil's outstanding objection (which indeed doesn't count as "unaddressed" since you're contesting it), but rather QGJ's objection, which was left unanswered since July 15 (two more days than the standard 10-day idle period). Nominators are expected to keep track of unstruck objections, regardless of QGJ supporting or not. How is the AC expected to know the objection is satisfied and not ignored? 1358 ^(Talk) 10:15, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
    • I realize it was about QGJ's objection. That objection was addressed and QGJ supported the article. If the person supported the article, then something strange must have happened and it should be looked into for more than ten minutes. Perhaps a question asked. Anil's minor (and I stress minor) conflict of interest should have been cause for some pause. If the situation will not even be read on its face and the other two votes are done automatically, then why are they even required? I am not asking for some major change to your protocol. I am just pointing out that the situation was not properly considered. NaruHina ^Talk 10:29, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
    • But, to be clear, I'm not trying to start a fight. It's just a frustrating situation and I needed to express that. I have, so now I'm satisfied. NaruHina ^Talk 10:33, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • As I'm the person in question here, I feel like I'm obligated to respond. Before removing an unsuccessful nomination, we ACs usually discuss it on IRC, then act accordingly. So, there are no two other automatic votes as speculated here, no member of an article reviewing body follows/accepts another's opinion blindly. It is just a coincidence that I was the one who noticed an over-10-days-old unadressed objection and brought it to AgriCorps' attention. As ACs have multiple nominations that require reviewing, never mind other duties, we leave keeping track of unstruck objections completely to the nominator. Anyways, multiple mentions of my objection from the previous nomination above—which clearly has nothing to do with the current situation—imply an accusation of a personal attack or something, which is unfortunate and disturbing. In order to not prolong this dispute, I will not respond to further statements. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 13:54, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
    • You made a mistake that upset me. You can dress that up however you like, but it happened and I forgive you for it. NaruHina ^Talk 19:16, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
      • Lol. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:18, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
• Just so you know, it is not the AC's job to ask QGJ why his objection wasn't struck. That's the nominator's job. We do not keep track of objections. It was indeed your responsibility to ask him why he did not strike his objection, and you had 12 days to do it. This is your nomination and yours alone. And renominating it isn't difficult, so I'm not sure why there is a big fuss. MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:57, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
  • If you don't understand why it's frustrating to monitor this closely for weeks to respond promptly, only for it to be removed in 10 minutes because of a technicality completely outside my control with obvious signs something was amiss, then I don't know what to tell you, Fred. But, from my perspective, I won't bottle myself up and pretend to feel nothing when I feel I've been wronged and I will express that. I encourage other people to do the same. I'm not a fan of the "personal attack" framing Anil chose, personally, but I understand that it's a Wookieepedia trope and I get what he meant. If this conversation had taken place on IRC, it would be over, it may have read less (or more) severely, and any background political fallout from it would linger undocumented like when we were kids. I'm just not into that anymore and the site isn't just for people who join IRC. Anyway, I'm over it. If you and others feel I went too far, fine, but I don't hold a grudge against anybody and it's not a big fuss anymore. NaruHina ^Talk 01:46, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
    • I had a nomination not long ago removed because I slipped up ever so slightly. I just renominated because those are the rules. It's not hard. You had 12 days to ask QGJ about his objection. And it's not hard to get on IRC. If you want to be more connected and communicate more efficiently, you'll join IRC. It's that simple. Nobody is saying you can't be frustrated, but we are saying you can't blame anyone else for it. It's not hard to renominate an article. MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:50, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter if it was easy if it had to be done for the wrong reasons, but I do not expect to change your mind. "You had 12 days to do this, without prompting, in response to support and it's your fault you didn't because things are too hectic for us with *checks notes* 8 noms" is excessive formalism that will not change my mind. I suggest referees pointing out supporting objectors would be a positive change and that being too busy for cursory consideration is not good. If y'all are really that swamped, maybe you should recruit more non-INQs? That view of IRC is elitist, IMO. If you would like the last word, take it, but this thread has resolved. NaruHina ^Talk 22:45, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
• As an admin, not an AC, I'm calling this argument to an end. It has moved beyond the nomination and is striding towards violating Wookieepedia:Civility. Keep conversations here to do with the article, all of you, or I'll be forced to intervene further. Thank you. Tommy Macaroni 23:14, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

1. Unaddressed objections by Xd1358, over ten days old. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:21, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:22, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
3. Tommy Macaroni 17:44, December 11, 2019 (UTC)