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. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:58, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to improve numerous battle and event articles I've recently begun adding the { { Confirm-battletitle} } tag. My edits to the pages Nishr Suppression, Nishr Campaign & Battle of Tiems have been reverted but I disagree with the logic of this as per User talk:Rokkur Shen#Reverts & User talk:Cavalier One#Reverts. As I have previously mentioned it is unclear whether the title of these articles are canon in their present state. I do not dispute that Cav has checked the source to confirm the canonicity of the respective pages only that it should be necessary to place a (First identified) tag as per the { {Confirm-battletitle} }. In their present state, without clarification in the source list, it is not explicit that the source Rules of Engagement: The Rebel SpecForce Handbook explicitly lists the events as "Nishr Campaign" and "Nishr Suppression" and to the casual user the actual canon name of event is left ambiguous. For example the source may have listed the event as the "suppression of Nishr" and the creator of the page named the page "Nishr Suppression" for simplicity but without the appropriate tag it is left to interpretation. My argument is that single-sourced articles should not be exempt from proper sourcing or left primarily up to user interpretation. Any thoughts? Rokkur Shen (talk) 11:02, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Hey there. I don't think it's a matter of proper sourcing --- the Layout Guide states the following:
- A subject might not be named in its first appearance, but is identified in a later source. In this case, use {{1st}} and {{1stID}}, e.g. for Senator Grebleips:
- Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace (First appearance)
- Cloak of Deception (First identified as Grebleips)
- ... which states pretty explicitly that {{1stID}} should only be used if a subject isn't properly ID'd in its first appearance/mention. A battle is really no different than a character in this case; if there's no {{Conjecture}} tag, and the full name of the battle is boldedin the intro, then it's pretty clear that the battle is the official, canonical name. Similarly, if there is a {{Conjecture}} tag (thank you for adding them to all those articles that needed them, by the way), and the full name of the battle isn't bolded in the intro, then it's pretty clear that it's a conjectural name. I hope this helps explain things; if not, let me know. Menkooroo (talk) 11:31, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Menk. {{1stID}} should only be used when a separate source canonises the name of an article (be it a battle, or a character) separate from its first appearance, or provides additional info such as a first name to a previously surname-only character. I think its also pretty much a case of common sense and the avoidance of over-using templates needlessly. If an article has a single source, then by definition it is that article's first appearance/mention and first ID. Use of a template in this case is basically redundant. - Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 11:54, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. My only problem is that I can see that new users (such as myself) seeing a page that does not clearly identify the canonicity of the title, and subsequently slapping a { {Conjecture} } tag on the page. Also, there are an abundance of older pages where users have not followed the layout guide, referencing guide or are even from before many policies were put in place, where the original single-source never explicitly referred to the event as it is named. This is where my confusion has stemmed and where I aimed to correct it by adding (First identified) tag. Rokkur Shen (talk) 12:06, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Menk. {{1stID}} should only be used when a separate source canonises the name of an article (be it a battle, or a character) separate from its first appearance, or provides additional info such as a first name to a previously surname-only character. I think its also pretty much a case of common sense and the avoidance of over-using templates needlessly. If an article has a single source, then by definition it is that article's first appearance/mention and first ID. Use of a template in this case is basically redundant. - Cavalier One
