Forum:TC:Presidency of Natasi Daala

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Presidency of Natasi Daala

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 and merge info with Natasi Daala. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 15:49, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Presidency of Natasi Daala (talk - history - links - logs)

This is an odd article. I can't find any other precedents for articles on individuals' reigns as Chief of State, and this doesn't seem like a precedent we should be starting, else articles such as "Gavrisom administration" and "Emperorship of Xandel Carivus" would be fair game. During Daala's reign, the Galactic Alliance is still just the Galactic Alliance, albeit with a crazed genocidal freak in charge. It's not a unique government, and all of the information from this article belongs in Natasi Daala, Galactic Federation of Free Alliances, and Lost Tribe of Sith resurgence. Menkooroo 04:35, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Delete and merge info with Natasi Daala

  1. Menkooroo 04:35, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. A well-written article, though. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 04:38, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  3. (Note that I'm creating a new voting option here as delete ≠ merge.) This is the type of thing Wikipedia does, creating articles on individual aspects of a person's life when the main article gets too long. However, we are not Wikipedia, and our position has always been "one subject, one article". Everything in this article except the "Legacy" and "Office of the Chief of State personnel" section clearly belongs in Daala's article, and even the aforementioned sections could probably be incorporated into the prose of Daala's article. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a separate article being created for the administration itself if there was unique info about it, but right now this article is merely a partial biography of Daala and belongs in her article. —MJ— Training Room Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 15:59 UTC
    • Can we just consider this and delete the same thing? Instead of needlessly splitting the vote, let's just agree that "Delete" means that the info will be added to Natasi Daala rather than tossed out the window. Menkooroo 17:48, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
      • I've edited the "Delete option" above. Will make notes on the talk pages of everyone who's already voted. Menkooroo 17:55, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
        • Merged my vote with the delete section, now that it's been clarified as to exactly what will happen. —MJ— Training Room Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 20:35 UTC
  4. Articles on elections I can understand, because they are discrete historical events. Articles on administrations, however, would be a mess, mostly because they'd be largely redundant with the character article--unless a LOT of work is done to separate them all, work I consider totally unnecessary. Can you imagine the nightmare a hypothetical "Palpatine administration" article would be? The man was the Empire, so the info on his administration rightly belongs in his bio. Likewise, the idiotic things done by the Daala administration were Daala's fault because of Daala's brain damage (canon!), and so they belong in Daala's bio. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 20:50, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Per Culator. This information belongs in the Daala and GA articles. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:04, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Completely unnecessary and redundant. At face value it can look like a nice idea, but per Culator. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:15, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  7. After some consideration, per Culator. 1358 (Talk) 10:01, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Precisely per Culator.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 12:38, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
  9. Jinzler 13:10, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
  10. Agreed, specifically with GT. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 13:16, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
  11. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:31, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
  12. This is a tough one, in no small part because it's a decent article that approaches its subject well. But I have to land on the side of delete/merge mainly because I think this sets a a very bad precedent and opens the gates to any and all manner of 'character x's organization.' And I really don't like the idea of giving a free pass to any conjectural subject that any old user or anon dreams up. A hard choice, given the quality of the article, but I have to go this way for wider concerns. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 05:51, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
  13. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 15:28, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  14. Fair enough, T. DD97Which bear is best? 16:05, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  15. JangFett (Talk) 13:39, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
  16. Han shoots first 02:43, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
  17. I do get what people are saying about the administration, but I don't find that it's necessary to have a separate article for it. Other articles serve the same purpose and would hold the information fine. CC7567 (talk) 05:20, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I have to disagree here. Yes it is a very well written article, but to merge it with Natasi Daala will diminish its approach in detailing the administration that she oversaw during that time. If this results in a Chancellorship of Palpatine article, etc, so be it, for it might actually cut down on that article's ginormous size for one, and I know there are plenty of articles here that link to other articles for greater context (i.e. Main Article). I don't even have to refer to real-world administration articles on Wikipedia outside of the actual person's article/biography that demonstrate this (yes I know WP:Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia), but that is something we can at least look at for comparison. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:02, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  2. I'm with Riff on this. An administration or presidential term is really a unique entity that consists of a cabinet, secretaries, advisors, and other agents. It's essentially an organization operating within the larger government that might have an agenda separate from that of the government itself. It's also an organization greater than the sum of its parts; by that, I mean that you can't really get the whole picture of an administration by looking at the disparate articles that chronicle the lives of its members. If an administration is specifically mentioned, depicted, or elaborated upon, it deserves an article. I agree with Riff's comparison to Wikipedia's standards on this topic. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 07:42, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  3. I agree with what was said above; the article is well written and does document something that is, both the real world and Star Wars, something that is very unique. Alexsau1991 (talk page) SithEmblemAlternate-Traced-TORkit 16:37, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Per Riff.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 18:26, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Cumulonimbus Cloud (Meeting Room) 21:20, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
  6. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 03:49, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
  7. 501st dogma(talk) 13:47, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
  8. I agree with Riff and Trayus on this. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 03:37, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Question: If there were a canonical reference to "Daala's administration" or "Palpatine's administration" or whathaveyou, would that be fair game? Executive administrations are, after all, unique entities that are independent of the executive themselves, or the government served for that matter. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 05:15, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

  • That's a precedent that hangs on the outcome of this vote, really. I believe that that kind of info belongs in the character's and the government itself's article, rather than in a third article that doesn't tell us anything new. Menkooroo 05:21, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to stress MJ's "We are not Wikipedia" point above. This doesn't at all seem like the kind of thing Wookieepedia should do, else the door is open for articles on the administration of everybody who's ever led any kind of government. "Aidel Saxan's Corellian Administration," "Tour Aryon's Tatooine Administration," and hundreds upon hundreds more. The fact that Wikipedia does something is not and never has been reason enough for us to do it; else we'd have an article on List of Supreme Chancellors with facial hair. Menkooroo 17:45, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
      • I would like to remind everyone that neither Riff nor I said that we should do it because Wikipedia does it. It was simply a comparison we were making. Also, as I said above, this would obviously not extend to any administration: If an administration is specifically mentioned, depicted, or elaborated upon, it deserves an article. None others, and not one for every leader. And as far as the Palpatine argument goes: we have a lot of articles considered a mess, especially those related to Palpatine. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 03:49, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
        • How would you justify not making one such article for every administration after letting this one stay? I can't think of a single administration that we know of that isn't "specifically mentioned, depicted, or elaborated upon" by definition. If we know of it, then it has to have been specifically mentioned at the very least… And none of that changes the fact that every piece of info presented here fits just as well in individual character articles, event articles, and (especially) the Galactic Alliance article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 13:52, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • Isn't there an article for the office itself, and could it stand to have a section added detailing various administrations? This could then be extended to the various other Chiefs of State, chancellors, etc.DD97Which bear is best? 15:05, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
    • Yep: Office of the Chief of State (and indeed we do have similar articles, too: e.g. Office of the Supreme Chancellor). That could do with a history section, and a bunch of the info in the Presidency article could go there. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:10, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, if someone were to add a merge option for that, I know where my vote would go. DD97Which bear is best? 15:52, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
        • There's nothing restricting anyone from merging this article's info into multiple articles, in addition to whatever article is specified within this forum's voting parameters. I don't think that should be preventing you from voting on one of these two options. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:58, May 29, 2012 (UTC)