Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Problem with Years template.
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6 (Talk to my master) 19:00, January 16, 2017 (UTC)
I've encountered an issue while trying to create the article 1022 BBY. Star Wars Propaganda: A History of Persuasive Art in the Galaxy confirms that the Galactic Republic was literally founded 1,000 years (1022 BBY) before the Clone Wars, not in 1000 BBY. However, when I try inserting the "header=1" field, it automatically uses Legends dating in the infobox and fails to create an intro. I assume this is linked to the /Canon namespace, but is there a way to fix this? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 00:50, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Template issues aside, where does Propaganda say the Republic was founded 1,000 years before the Clone Wars? The book shows that the Republic was celebrating "a millennium of peace" during Chancellor Valorum's term, which is before the Clone Wars. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:55, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- On page 24: "Tales on its founding have been occluded by the haze of the intervening millennia, and its rebirth a thousand years ago was regarded as its latest in an unending cycle." The write up of this section of the book cover the events of Episode II, in 22 BBY. Combined with Palpatine's quote "I will not let this Republic that has stood for a thousand years be split in two.", I think this is enough evidence to confirm the modern Republic's year of founding. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:02, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- I could say "a hundred years ago" and refer generally to the 1910s. That doesn't mean I'm literally saying 1916. I wouldn't treat what you just quoted as confirmation of anything, especially since Chancellor Valorum was celebrating a millennium of peace sometime during his term. We don't need a year article for this until we know the actual year. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:07, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the literal definition of a millennia is a period of 1,000 years, eliminating any ambiguity on the matter. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:11, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- And again, the millennium of peace celebration is during Valorum's term. You're trying to extrapolate something that the book doesn't necessarily say. Don't impatiently create a page that you could be wrong about. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:16, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Canonically, we know Valorum was reelected for a second term as chancellor, but do we know how many years a term is or how many times a chancellor can be reelected? He may have created the invitation a decade in advance in order to perfect it. We already know it went through 250 revisions before arriving in its near-final form. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:19, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- That's complete speculation. You're really stretching to try to create this page. No, we don't know how long a term is or if any of what you said happened. All the more reason not to create a year page yet. It's not really necessary. We're not missing anything by not having this page. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:22, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah that is absolutely not how I read those parts of Propaganda. For one thing, the book talks about how Valorum was doing preliminary prep work for the millennial celebration, and that would've been no later than 32 BBY. Plus Palpatine's "a thousand years" (note that he did not say "ONE thousand years") line, plus various other references to it in Propaganda—I thought it was very clear that "a thousand years" was meant roughly, in the same way Brandon notes that "a hundred years ago" is a vague pointer at the 1910s, not specifically to 1916. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 01:23, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- First off, I am not saying that he created the invitation a decade in advance. I'm just saying that we have no idea that the Republic would be celebrating a millennium in 32 BBY, especially since we don't know if Valorum's term would have naturally ended in that year. As I said above, we don't know how long a chancellor's term is. No, we don't need an article; I've been convinced that the evidence I have presented is inconclusive. However, it may be wise to ask Pablo to clarify the matter before totally closing this discussion. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:33, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Upon further investigation, it seems that a chancellors term is around 4 years. Near the end of Palpatine's second term, he was kept in office to deal with the Separatist Crisis, which began several years befre the Clone Wars, so it wouldn't make sense for Valorum to create the invitiation unless he could be reelected for several more terms. I concede the point. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:41, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah term length is noted in the Galaxy Divided section (specifically, pg 25, beneath the photo of Dooku and Poggle): "For a decade–two and a half terms–of Palpatine's Chancellery". That would make a single term four years (no I haven't memorized the book, this just stood out to me when reading it as being peculiarly American, for the GFFA). — DigiFluid(Whine here) 01:43, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Upon further investigation, it seems that a chancellors term is around 4 years. Near the end of Palpatine's second term, he was kept in office to deal with the Separatist Crisis, which began several years befre the Clone Wars, so it wouldn't make sense for Valorum to create the invitiation unless he could be reelected for several more terms. I concede the point. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:41, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- First off, I am not saying that he created the invitation a decade in advance. I'm just saying that we have no idea that the Republic would be celebrating a millennium in 32 BBY, especially since we don't know if Valorum's term would have naturally ended in that year. As I said above, we don't know how long a chancellor's term is. No, we don't need an article; I've been convinced that the evidence I have presented is inconclusive. However, it may be wise to ask Pablo to clarify the matter before totally closing this discussion. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:33, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah that is absolutely not how I read those parts of Propaganda. For one thing, the book talks about how Valorum was doing preliminary prep work for the millennial celebration, and that would've been no later than 32 BBY. Plus Palpatine's "a thousand years" (note that he did not say "ONE thousand years") line, plus various other references to it in Propaganda—I thought it was very clear that "a thousand years" was meant roughly, in the same way Brandon notes that "a hundred years ago" is a vague pointer at the 1910s, not specifically to 1916. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 01:23, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- That's complete speculation. You're really stretching to try to create this page. No, we don't know how long a term is or if any of what you said happened. All the more reason not to create a year page yet. It's not really necessary. We're not missing anything by not having this page. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:22, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Canonically, we know Valorum was reelected for a second term as chancellor, but do we know how many years a term is or how many times a chancellor can be reelected? He may have created the invitation a decade in advance in order to perfect it. We already know it went through 250 revisions before arriving in its near-final form. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:19, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- And again, the millennium of peace celebration is during Valorum's term. You're trying to extrapolate something that the book doesn't necessarily say. Don't impatiently create a page that you could be wrong about. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:16, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the literal definition of a millennia is a period of 1,000 years, eliminating any ambiguity on the matter. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:11, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- I could say "a hundred years ago" and refer generally to the 1910s. That doesn't mean I'm literally saying 1916. I wouldn't treat what you just quoted as confirmation of anything, especially since Chancellor Valorum was celebrating a millennium of peace sometime during his term. We don't need a year article for this until we know the actual year. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:07, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- On page 24: "Tales on its founding have been occluded by the haze of the intervening millennia, and its rebirth a thousand years ago was regarded as its latest in an unending cycle." The write up of this section of the book cover the events of Episode II, in 22 BBY. Combined with Palpatine's quote "I will not let this Republic that has stood for a thousand years be split in two.", I think this is enough evidence to confirm the modern Republic's year of founding. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:02, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
Please don't ask Pablo to clarify it. This is the exact type of question he hates getting. There is no need to actually know this information right now. Some day, that story will be told. They're not going to lock themselves into a specific year in a tweet. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:52, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- All this info would find a better home on the Old Republic page anyways. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:09, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently, someone from another website DID ask pablo to clarify. FWIW, here's what he said: "[The millennium celebrations] would have started before [Valorum's] term ended and lasted a length that mirrored the campaign to liberate the capital. Maybe." --LelalMekha (talk) 12:16, November 8, 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. I created the
header=1option, which relies on the canon type of the template to emerge. It does seem that {{Year}} needs /Canon to be deemed as canon, considering almost every date we'd like to use already has a Legends page. For now, I suggest just using thetype=canonparameter alongside the header one. For example,{{Year|type=canon|header=1}}NoahR9
Chat with me! 23:28, November 11, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that parameter was supposed to do, but it's not going to do it, as it's not passed to the underlying metatemplate properly. Why exactly are we trying to put a quote directly in the infobox? If the year page doesn't have /Canon or /Legends, you just use the type= parameter, like {{Eras}}. Cade
Calrayn 13:47, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that parameter was supposed to do, but it's not going to do it, as it's not passed to the underlying metatemplate properly. Why exactly are we trying to put a quote directly in the infobox? If the year page doesn't have /Canon or /Legends, you just use the type= parameter, like {{Eras}}. Cade
- Sorry to drew this up again, but according toEntertainment Weekly's Ultimate Guide to Rogue One, it looks the Galactic Republic was founded in 1032 BBY. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:16, December 17, 2016 (UTC)
