Talk: Palpatine/Legends/Archive13

Back to page |
< Talk:Palpatine/Legends

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Archived talk: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Rewriting...

I feel that much of this article needs to be Wookieefied, so to speak. It reads like some sort of melodramatic novel rather than an encylopedic entry. I've removed some of the offending parts, but first I need agreement from others. Unit 8311 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's been decided to keep the article as it is. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Pity.Unit 8311 15:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The sad part isn't how it's written, but the fact that it's here in an encyclopedia.--Herbsewell 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • As much as I love Wookieepedia, referring to it as something as dignified as an "encyclopedia" seems a little melodramatic itself. Cutch 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Gah, this article's bloated. Even the first paragraph of the first section reads like some gusher's biography. Where was it decided to keep the page as it is? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Well that's what wikis are. Whether they're about Adult Swim, or Zelda, they're encyclopedias.--Herbsewell 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't really have the patience to go through megabytes of archived talk pages, but here it was decided to keep the current style by a 68% supermajority. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 16:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
              • It seems the debate there was more about detail and less about the flowery, almost fanboyish way in which the article reads in some places. I think it could be rewritten to be just as detailed, but to seem less like it was written by a Sidious groupie. Eggmanland 22:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
                • The majority of the article was written by a great contributor to this site who put a lot of work into this article. Now, it's been decided it's to stay as it is. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Very well. No sense getting into an argument with Captain Dogma. Eggmanland 23:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Watch it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • Lighten up Jack. Anyway, just because someone put effort into something, does not mean it can't be improved.--Herbsewell 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • 1) I don't like people calling me names, so don't tell me to lighten up, Herbsewell. 2) I'm not saying it can't be improved. I'm just saying that we're not re-writing the whole article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Nobody's saying the we need to do it all over. Just go in and find the parts where it reads like, to borrow Captain Kwenn's term, a gusher's biography. That could be done simply by trimming or rewriting sentences here and there. This isn't a black and white issue. Eggmanland 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
                        • I'd like that.--Herbsewell 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
                          • "Nobody's saying the we need to do it all over". Eggmanland, Unit 8311 was inferring that we'd have to perform a major rewrite. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
                            • My question to you is, what if we did it the way I suggested? A few sentences here and there? Eggmanland 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
                              • In my opinion, it would make the article that much better.--Herbsewell 00:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
                                • Rewriting a few sentences here and there is no problem at all. I just didn't want a massive rewriting of the whole article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
                                  • Heh. I suppose in retrospect, having the title of this part called 'rewriting' was a little bit too much. By that I meant not completely changing the entire article, but eliminating and rewriting the various sentences in it that made it look like some sort of novel or fanfic. Unit 8311 08:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For one thing, let's limit the use of "very". That word is kind of puerile, and shouldn't be used as often as it is in this article.--Herbsewell 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's necessary, we can't remove it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As a matter of fact, we already had a discussion earlier this year that already removed some of the more "flowery" details. Nevertheless, please specify what you would like changed so we can discuss. Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well I would like the word "very", like in "very powerful Dark Lord of the Sith", or "very short time" taken out. It sounds as if a kid wrote it.--Herbsewell 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • But if "very" is needed for something like that, we can't remove it. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
            • No, it's not, it just sounds juvenile.--Herbsewell 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Excuse me for jumping in, but can we hold a vote? I personally feeel that while this article is interesting, it is very unencyclopedic. It is not like any other articles and needs to be fixed. A vote would be like Anakin/Vader merger, lots of people immediately vote no without thinking, but really it would be better to rewrite this and make it more encyclopedic. It should not be the only article written like this, the only one "exempt" to the standards we have. A cleansing is needed. Chack Jadson 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Chack, it's already been voted on, and the decision was keep it as is. I'm sorry you don't like it as is, but a certain user spent a lot of his time making the article into what it is today, and changing all of that is just rude. And Herbsewell, sometimes "very" is needed. It makes all the difference between "very powerful" and "powerful". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • And sometimes it's not, and next time sign your posts. FYI, that was just an example of how it might be not needed.--Herbsewell 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree that this article doesn't really follow the standard neutralized speech of most articles on this site. If you change wording, make sure the facts remain the same. Frankly, saying "very powerful Sith Lord" or "powerful Sith Lord" really isn't all that important. VT-16 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd argue that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Argue what? That it is important? Anyway, just use synonyms. There's plenty of synonyms for very and other common words. Chack Jadson 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'd argue that "very powerful Sith Lord" is important. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Ummm.... If I can just cut in here with a reminder that we should start sourcing this article before it gets whacked by the Inquisitors... Rodtheanimegod4ever 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with Rod about it being fixed before the inquisitors get it booted from FA status, but I am VERY much in agreement with Jack. This was the article that made me return to Wookieepedia time and again for all my Star Wars inquiries. I feel that the content is fine and the vote was already taken anyway. If you must fix any spelling or grammatical errors then I would fully support that, but as far as content and wrighting style goes, I like it.Dark Lord Trayus 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ARGH! I'm so sick of this! The fact of the matter is that this is one of the best written articles on the entire site. Those who think otherwise are, in my opinion, mostly jealous. I don't see why we can't just leave it alone—the tone is fine! Why worry about POV when Palpatine is obviously the main villain of the entire saga? The films are definitely biased in that respect—why not this article? Geez. Cutch 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We should probably start a petition to the admins to limit the Inquisitorius's power before they go too far. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree Jack, I love the canon Inquisitors, but these guys need dome sort of a check/balance system...Who knows?, they could all be light siders and are just out to mess with Sith articles..jk.--Dark Lord Trayus 03:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I can't believe this; the Inquistorius is the Empire! Start a Rebellion! Cutch 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Gentlemen, please, please... I have been in discussions with the Inquisitorius on this. My initial words were as angry as yours are, but we are calmly talking the matter through. Though they feel there needs to be some rewriting, it's really nothing anyone would miss in the long run, and as the guy who wrote most of it, I hope you'd trust my judgment. Perhaps time and distance have given me perspective and enabled me to better simplify and maintain the quality you all care about.

Actually, the big issue with the Inqs concerns sourcing the article properly, according to the new general rule. It's such a new arrangement to me, who isn't here every minute, that I hadn't been aware of it. Still, I think it's a very good idea in general, and for this article in particular it is a sensible concern, and they and I both feel that once everything in the article is sourced, it makes the article that much more bulletproof. Therefore, I have begun citing sources, and will continue to do so with the expectation that others will assist me. If that gets done, the Inqs will consider the whole matter settled.

Having seen them actually treat me respectfully and reasonably, I'm not prepared to judge the Inquisitors until they demonstrate to me that they genuinely deserve harsh judgment. Keep in mind that this is not a shadowy oligarchy of faceless and nameless specters with evil intentions; many of the Inqs are people we already work with and know. Like most people anywhere, whatever antagonism they are said to have can be disarmed if you're prepared to give them a chance and work with them. And whether anyone believes it or not, I'm sure they share our desire to make sure that Wookieepedia ranks as the first among equals for Star Wars sites. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt... until they give me reason not to. Erik Pflueger 20px 06:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • And what about the fact that they're threatening to remove articles from FA status that so many users worked on? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • A lot of people work on a lot of things, and only a fraction become featured. Featured status means it's one of the best articles. If an article ceases to be the best, it shouldn't be featured. How much sense does it make to say, "These are our best articles, make every article as good as this," for something that's lacking? Look at Jedi, for example: is that the sort of article we should point to as an exemplar? Because that's exactly what we're doing now. And because it probably still needs to be said, an article will be marked that it was formerly featured. We've got a special grey star and everything, and the talk page will say the same thing. - Lord Hydronium 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The decision was made by a solid consensus in that same Consensus Track thread that articles that fell below current FA status could be stripped of such status by the Inquisitorius. Again, Jack, you were among the votes in favor of such a policy. jSarek 12:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As the person who spearheaded the idea of the Inquisitorius, let me say a few things: We're not out to take away all the Featured Articles. The Inquisitorius only exists to ensure a higher level of quality, and Wikipedia has/had something similar. That being said, we are willing to work with anyone on "saving" Featured Articles. Anyone can visit the Inquisitorius pages and see what needs to be done. Not only are we willing to point out flaws in the articles, but we're also willing to help work on them. I just put 2 hours into Palpatine doing some of the sourcing and trimming some of the POV content. The thing that gets on our collective nerves is when people say "XYZ is the awesomest article! Why are u bashing it!?!?!1!" when the article fails to meet basic requirements. (Kyle Katarn, I'm looking at you.) In conclusion, just be willing to meet us halfway, and the article is both improved and keeps FA status. Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Ataru, you're basically threatening people to fix the article before it gets removed from FA status. Is that the image you want the Inquisitorius to have? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Threatening? What the hell? The two-week probation is to give the article a chance to be fixed before it's stripped and stay an FA. You'd prefer it were just removed with no warning? - Lord Hydronium 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
            • It's a matter of construal. I kinda agree with Jack. Well, I don't see it as a direct threat, but it does seem like a stick method (as in 'stick and carrot) of making peopke make certain edits to the article. KEJ 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Hydronium: I see it as threatening because it's basically saying "Fix the article now, or it will be removed from FA status within a week." Just because a time period is given doesn't mean it still can't be threatening. And of course I don't want it to be removed without any warning. That'd be abusing your powers. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Then you have a very loose definition of "threat". If an article is not up to FA standards, it shouldn't be an FA; a vote was held, and it was decided that articles could be removed from FA status by the Inquisitorius. Now, you can protest those decisions all you want (even if you did vote for one), but with them as givens, what wouldn't be "abusing power" to you? We remove it instantly, that's bad. We give it X amount of time until it's removed, that's bad because it's a "threat". So the only way that you can be satisfied would seem to be giving every article an indefinite amount of time, which of course would be the same as not removing FA status at all. Would it be a threat to say "if an article is unverified within X time, it will be deleted"? I mean, the whole VfD system is an abuse of power under your definition. - Lord Hydronium 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • No, the VfD system is not an abuse of power because everyone has the ability to vote in it. In the Inquisitorius, only a select few do, and they seem to think that they own every article on Wookieepedia and can do whatever they want to with them. In addition, the fact that an article was voted for FA status in the first place shows how the Inquisitorius is abusing powers: They're just disregarding what the community has previously said to further their own powers over Wookieepedia. An abuse of powers by the Inquisitorius is not what I voted for. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • First of all, you, and everybody else, voted for exactly what we're doing. Seriously, look at the actual vote page. It's in bold right above the voting area for the Inquisitorius, and in big bold letters at the top as one of the consensus items. Secondly, the articles that were voted as FAs were voted in over a year ago; they've changed a lot, and the articles that were made FAs, though they may share the same title and much of the same content, are not the same as the ones now. Wikis change. That's kind of their whole point, and the idea of FA removal acknowledges that. Can you honestly tell me that Jedi as it is now is the sort of thing that would or should be an FA? - Lord Hydronium 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                      • I'm pleased to see that I did not vote for the system. Jaymach makes an interesting observation in a comment on that vote page. He says it promotes elitism. I think he's right, and elitism enables power abuse. This is where Jack's argument comes in. The whole FA-removal system may be seen as way of forcing users into making some very specific edits. Moreover, FA-removal may be a way for an Inq to get rid of an FA that the Inq doesn't like. I'm not saying that this is going on, but the Inq system does give room for such pwer abuse. KEJ 08:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                        • What the hell? You don't have to fix the article. Know what'll happen? the colour of the little icon will change. Does that so impact upon your life? It shouldn't. However, if you want to keep it up to par, do the edits. We're not forcing anyone to do anything. .... 09:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                        • a) What Fourdot said. I'm not adding anything of value by saying that, but it bears repeating. b) You do realize that seven Inquisitors need to vote for an FA to be stripped, right? One Inq by himself can't do shit (oh, right, you weren't saying that was happening, you were just saying it "might", wink wink). Indeed, in the voting last Saturday, all it took were two Inqs to say "keep", and an article would stay an FA. For the ones near the end, it was one. And yet only Obi-Wan and Leia stayed. Out of eight people, none of the other articles could muster up two, or for a couple of them, even one "keep" vote. Yeah, that's quite the case of power abuse going on there. Or maybe all the Inqs have got it in for the FAs! - Lord Hydronium 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                          • Just to reiterize. I'm not saying that such power abuse is going on. This is not an accusation, but that there is, or seems to be, the potential for such power abuse in the Inq system. No need to get all fired up. KEJ 12:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                            • I've just altered some of the article slightly (not too much though) to remove some of the melodramatic novel-type prose and give it a more encylopedic feel. Unit 8311 12:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                              • Hydronium, you do not own Wookieepedia. Nor are you an admin. What I once thought was a good idea has turned into, as KEJ, a group of users who believe they are elite and can basically do whatever they want. The Inquisitorius needs to be bound by strict rules that do not allow them to abuse their power. And Hydronium, your attitude on this entire discussion is horrible. If you're so willing to prove that what the Inquisitorius is doing is good, get a better attitude and prove me wrong. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                                • Oh, wow! Elitism! Inq's have got the powaaa - to change a little icon. Grow up. If you would open your eyes a tad, you would realise that these articles are not up to scratch, and no longer represent our best. What the Inquisitorius allows is for a process that would normally take months and months to take weeks, all with a view to making Wookieepedia more streamlined. In the words of Mt. Sorrow, "Boo hoo." .... 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                                • Dude: Everything we're doing was voted on by the community. Do I need to link to the CT thread again? Why do I get the feeling you only developed these objections when the Inqs went after an article you've so zealously protected? - Lord Hydronium 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
                                  • I'm well aware of the vote. After all, I did vote for it. But it was my fault that I did not read it completely. I can't change that. In addition, how would I know that a possible abuse of powers would arise? After all, I should have known putting Fourdot in a position of power over Wookieepedia isn't that good. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This ends now. The next comment that's not directly related to this article will result in a ban. --ATATatarismall.png 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, back to the article: Why exactly does this article have to be removed from FA status if not rewritten? In addition, shouldn't regular users have a say in when an article such as Palpatine might possibly be removed from FA status? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If you wish to change the current FA system, feel free to create a consensus track. --ATATatarismall.png 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, Brian, the laypeople don't get a say, because a) they voted for the Inquisitorius, and b) they don't know what's good for them. The problems with the article have been specified, the policies are known. If you want to have the article kept, remove your digit, and do some work. Otherwise, it will lose FA status. So let it be written, so let it be done, ect. .... 00:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
          • First of all, don't use my real name. Second of all, what you just said proves you think you are above all other users; you think you're elite, and that's the whole problem with the Inquisitorius. Well, guess what: You're not elite. You are just as much a common user as I am, and no title like "Inquisitor" will change that. Third of all, Fourdot, I don't see you trying to improve this article. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
            • First of all, don't post it on your user page, then. Second of all, drop me a line when you start contributing. And third of all, it's not in my mandate, or my intrests. And I don't see you doing anything but polishing quotes and adding line breaks. Now get back to talking about the damn article and stop your petty little nonsense. .... 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, seriously. Edit this section again and you'll be banned. --ATATatarismall.png 21:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where????

Where did Palpy go when he contacted Gunray, Maul, Dooku, and the seps? Did he go to the Works? Also what ever happened to Mas amadda? Quinlanfan 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)