Forum:TC:Non-notable Pius Dea Crusades

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Non-notable Pius Dea Crusades

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. 1358 (Talk) 07:38, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable Pius Dea Crusades

Per the precedent of Forum:TC:Battles of Zehava, I don't believe we should have these articles. Like the Zehava battles that were deleted, these are inferred based solely on a mention of the total number of crusades, without an actual mention of that crusade individually. All information in the articles is, to my understanding, based solely on a description of the overall conflict, again like the Zehava battles. I discussed this with Cade Calrayn, who wrote these up, here. No offense to him, but I disagree with his viewpoint and believe that these articles should be deleted. —MJ— War Room Friday, May 11, 2012, 17:09 UTC

Voting

Delete

  1. As nominator. —MJ— War Room Friday, May 11, 2012, 17:09 UTC
  2. I did suggest to Cade not to make them until details about them are specifically mentioned, so I have to vote for delete. Gal-icon OLIOSTER (talk) 17:13, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Per my argument below regarding indirect mentions. Menkooroo 17:49, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Weakly. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:05, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  5. While we know that they were crusades and that they happened, we don't know much else, so I have to say delete as non-notable. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 19:23, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  6. No offense, but if we allow these articles what is to stop someone from taking a 1,000,000 BBY date and creating a million articles? In any event, I believe the Pius Dea Crusades article should be the place to mention that there were thirty-four crusades, we just do not articles for each one.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:33, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Per the Jax Pavans. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:03, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  8. I'm going to have to agree here with the above. 1358 (Talk) 21:06, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  9. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 23:21, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  10. There are more precedents for a delete here, here, and here. (Maybe here too.) —Silly Dan (talk) 02:27, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
  11. Jinzler 12:36, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
  12. Per precedent. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 14:51, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
  13. Per precedent and per EJ.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 18:13, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
  14. After reconsidering, I understand MJ's point and have to agree. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 02:42, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
  15. --Eyrezer 20:48, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
  16. Sure. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:27, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

As creator. Per a discussion with Menk, I do believe that if they survive the crusades should be moved to "Nth Pius Dea crusade", and that only the Pius Dea should be capitalized in the body because they are conjectural titles. The First, Third, and the others that were explicitly mentioned in the EGW should stay at Crusade, however. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 17:19, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

  1. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 17:48, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Lets keep these articles, but not make any more crusades articles to fill the spaces between 34th and the others. 501st dogma(talk) 20:37, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Nahdar Vebb 20:48, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Cumulonimbus Cloud 17:38, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • A similar case appears to be most of the Contispex dynasty, specifically Contispex III through Contispex XVII. I'm tempted to nominate them as well, but I would like to hear the community's opinion here first before I do so. —MJ— War Room Friday, May 11, 2012, 17:09 UTC
    • Yes, I was just about to mention that. While NaruHina helped me finish creating those, he did not object to the logic basis of their creation (or at least that's what I got from the conversation). But MJ is right—I created Contispex III through Contispex XVIII based on the fact that the last of the dynasty is Contispex XIX, and that Contispex I's son is explicitly named Contispex II in the EGW. Also, if the crusades survive, I believe that a {{Conjecture}} tag should be placed on the Contispexes that were not named in the EGW. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 17:19, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
      • Another set of articles I would add to the discussion are the as-of-yet uncreated Alsakan Conflicts articles and the other Pius Dea Crusades that I have not yet made. Only the 1st-4th, 6th-7th, and 17th conflicts were mentioned. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 17:21, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Some food for thought: I usually count something like a mention of the "Solo twins" as an indirect mention of both Jacen and Jaina, but I generally limit that to small quantities like two and three. eg, I wouldn't count a mention of "Red Squadron" as an indirect mention of any of the individual members of Red Squadron. Under that logic, I wouldn't count a mention of "34 Pius Dea Crusades" as an indirect mention of any of the individual crusades, ergo, I would argue that these articles haven't even been indirectly mentioned in canon. What does everyone think? Menkooroo 17:48, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm... not a bad argument, Menk. While I still think that the crusades exist, I do see your point. While I still think the articles should stay, 'm wouldn't be incredibly crestfallen to see them go. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 18:16, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • Splitting hairs over semantics, IMO. No, it's not specifically mentioned if you're talking about a third of something, but the irrefutable implication is that there was a first and a second in order for there to be a third. Hence, indirect mention. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 19:58, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • An overall article to cover the crusades that have otherwise not been specified, I think would work. That would solve the problem beautifully. It would, in a way, keep the articles, without adding unnecessary articles that would essentially say the same thing. Some time back, we had something similar on SWFanon. A user was putting up copy-pasted articles that all said the same thing, but they all related to some fanon war that resembles the word "crouton." Most of those articles were deleted as they were essentially spam. What could have solved the problem then, and you know how they say that hindsight is 20-20, would have been if it was suggested that "this war involved these planets" and then list the planets involved, rather than make separate articles for them. If they needed to be linked in other articles, make a redirect that goes to that page. We didn't do that there, and it's been about three years. But, we can easily and quickly solve this problem here by making that same generic over-arching article that covers the basic jist of these crusades and just redirecting the existing ones to that article. Any other crusades to be made would summarily be redirected to that article. Trak Nar Ramble on 01:49, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • I hate to do this to Naru, but it seems that this should also apply to the Dilonexa planets. Thoughts? Menkooroo 17:25, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • You have a good point there. I'm not sure why I didn't think of that when those articles were created. —MJ— Council Chambers Monday, May 14, 2012, 18:07 UTC
      • I thought of that as well, but I'm not sure if it's quite the same. With people and events the numbering might be off, but with the planets it mentions an exact number of planets being too hot and another exact number of planets being too cold. This is mentioning each planet in a group, while the Contispex articles and Pius-Dea crusade articles take a given number and say that there are (number-1) crusades/Constipexs before that one. The difference may be slight, but I think there is an important difference: Canonical number of items (Dilonexa Planets) vs. Inferred number of items (Contispexs and Pius-Dea crusades). What do you think of this reasoning?--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 18:41, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't think that the number of Pius Dea Crusades is inferred; as far as I know, Warfare does state that there were thirty-four in total. The issue here instead seems to be a loose definition of "indirect mention" coupled with a lack of notability --- eg, if a novel stated "Luke walked into a room and saw thirty-four Bothans," we wouldn't create an article for each individual Bothan, even if seventeen of them had brown fur and another seventeen had white fur. Menkooroo 18:57, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay, I wasn't sure, but I see a potential problem here. What exactly is the difference between say, one bothan with white fur in a certain situation and your 17 Bothans with white fur. If the one Bothan attacks someone then he/she gets an article, but the seventeen Bothans do not. Seems like something is wrong there to me.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:11, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
            • I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a matter of notability. In a non-visual medium like novels, characters have to actually do something in order to be notable. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, otherwise a novel that said "Thousands of air speeders flew through the spacelanes" would have us creating thousands of "Unidentified air speeder" articles, or a novel that said "Luke pushed through a crowd of fifty Humans" would have us creating fifty "Unidentified Human" articles. Menkooroo 02:07, May 15, 2012 (UTC)