Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/98th Elite Mechanized Assault Group

< Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

98th Elite Mechanized Assault Group

  • Nominated by: GethralkinHyperwave 08:42, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Star Wars PocketModel TCG unit

(1 ECs/3 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. —Axinal Convocation Chamber 21:58, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Bonslywizard Naboo (Send a transmission) 23:42, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
  3. ECvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:29, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Imperators II(Talk) 22:05, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Object

    • The "Characteristics" section (or rather, sentence) could definitely be fixed up a bit. Right now, it's pretty confusing. —Unsigned comment by Bonslywizard (talk • contribs)
    • The "History" section is pretty confusing also. Change that a little.—Unsigned comment by Bonslywizard (talk • contribs)
      • Removed. No specific history recorded that I know of, except that they participated in the Imperial Civil War. GethralkinHyperwave 16:03, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
    • Only bold the name in the intro. Never the body.—Unsigned comment by Bonslywizard (talk • contribs)
    • "Century tanks of the 98th Elite were often called upon to lead strikes on mission objectives." Okay, so what kind of strikes? Does the card say?—Unsigned comment by Bonslywizard (talk • contribs)
      • Removed. A different elite century tank unit was a lead position assault group, not this one. GethralkinHyperwave 16:03, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
    • "Century Tanks" are capitalized the first time, but not the second. Which is it?—Unsigned comment by Bonslywizard (talk • contribs)
    • Parentheses are almost never used in articles around here, so it would be best if these were removed.—Unsigned comment by Bonslywizard (talk • contribs)
    • I'll have another look once these are addressed. Anyway, welcome to the CAN page! :D Bonslywizard Naboo (Send a transmission) 00:00, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, you really changed the article alot since last I checked, so I'll re-review. Bonslywizard Naboo (Send a transmission) 21:33, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you sure that this unit existed during the Rebellion era, as the article currently states? Given that they are an Imperial Remnant unit, they could have existed during the Rebellion era, the New Republic era, or later eras. Therefore, you can't make any assumptions about which publishing era they feature in, unless the source dates their existance to a more specific time. If that is the case, then please cite the dating in the article. If not, then please remove any mention of the Rebellion era. --Jinzler 13:55, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Jinzler
    • Could you perhaps include some context on what a century tank is?
      • I thought the link to the century tank article would suffice. It has in the other century tank Assault Group articles—like the 88th Mechanized Assault Group—that are nominated on this page. What did you have in mind? GethralkinHyperwave 04:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
        • I was thinking maybe just something along the lines of stating that they were a type of attack vehicle developed by Santhe/Sienar Technologies. Given that a large proportion of the article is related to the tanks, I think that such additional detail would be useful here. What do you think --Jinzler 08:54, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
          • Minor description put in, including reference to alternate name. Didn't want to go into too much detail. How's that? GethralkinHyperwave 16:27, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • century tanks of the 98th Elite were more formidable than standard units, such as used by the 88th Mechanized. What do you mean by "standard units" here? I presume this is referring to standard Imperial mechanized units, or something along those lines, but article is currently unclear. Please specify.
      • The 88th Mechanized used stock century tank units. They would be considered the standard. The 98th and other Assault Groups modified their century tanks to the needs of the particular group they were in. GethralkinHyperwave 04:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • I see that you have now added The New Essential Chronology to the source list. If the unit appears in the NEC, then that might be worth a mention in the "Behind the scenes" section. Also, as there is more than one source you will need a "1stm" template next to whichever one was the first to mention the unit.
      • Isn't {{1stID}} enough? GethralkinHyperwave 04:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
        • I see you logic in using that template, but the Layout Guide [Wookieepedia:Layout_Guide#Appearances advises] that the "1stID" template should only be used when a subject is not named in its first appearance and is first identified by a later source. A "1st" or "1stm" template is still needed for the source that mentions the subject first. --Jinzler 08:54, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
          • Done. NEC was wrong source though, probably copied over accidentally. GethralkinHyperwave 16:27, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • I look forward to seeing more nominations from you in the future. And my use of timestamping here is correct, per my comments below :P Jinzler 17:09, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II
    • Again, the whole "Characteristics" section cannot be sourced to the Databank, since the Databank doesn't mention this specific unit. Imperators II(Talk) 09:33, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
      • The info about a TIE crawler vehicle being called a century tank can be referenced as per your comment for the 71st. It is important because the miniature is called a "TIE Crawler," not a "century tank," so the official designation has to be accounted for. GethralkinHyperwave 15:56, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, citations have been distributed according to pertinent info. GethralkinHyperwave 16:19, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
          • "98th Elite Mechanized Assault Group was outfitted with gray and dark blue-striped century tanks" still can't be sourced to the Databank. Imperators II(Talk) 16:23, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, fortunately, that is not the statement that is sourced to the Databank. Please check again. You will find that the only statement sourced to the Databank is where century tanks are "Unofficially called TIE crawlers." GethralkinHyperwave 17:31, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
              • The common practice is that ref [X] references everything between it and the previous ref (i.e., "The Imperial Remnant's 98th Elite Mechanized Assault Group was outfitted with gray and dark blue-striped century tanks—compact assault vessels consisting of a TIE fighter cockpit linked between two large tank treads. Unofficially called TIE crawlers,"). If you choose to interpret that ref [1] only references the previous part of the same sentence (i.e., "Unofficially called TIE crawlers,"), then the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section is unsourced. Imperators II(Talk) 21:03, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Cav:
    • No era tags?
      • The {{Eras}} is there, but any specific era has been removed per the objections stated already. GethralkinHyperwave 07:19, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
        • But there is no era specified. If you are claiming that the TIE crawlers were active during the period of in-fighting between the Imperial warlords, then it deserves at least a New Republic era tag, which would then be added to the infobox as well. The NR era stretches from 5 ABY-25 ABY, during which the Warlords rose, fought, fell, and were eventually consolidated into the Imperial Remnant. The tag should be applied. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 10:24, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
          • You know, I knew something was off about the objection that Jinzler made above. For one thing, I was pretty sure that they didn't even begin manufacturing them until after the Rebellion era was over and the New Republic was established. Second, the first customers were the warlords, so that pretty much cinches the time period. Thanks, I will fix it. GethralkinHyperwave 13:30, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
    • Affiliation is listed as the Imperial Remnant - my understanding was that the Remnant was not officially referred to as such until much later in the chronology. What is the reasoning for using this rather than "Galactic Empire"? - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 09:54, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
      • The squabbling warlords were no longer the Galactic Empire when Santhe/Sienar sold the century tanks to them—they were the remnants of the Empire. GethralkinHyperwave 07:19, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
        • Here's a good anology: Certain tanks were in use in Europe during a war that, at the time, was referred to as "The Great War." Historically, we do not call them Great War tanks, we call them World War I tanks. Star Wars wikia articles are written in prose that reads in hindsight—or past-tense—giving the appearance of a historical in-universe record. The Imperial Remnant may not have been officially defined as such at the time that the Imperial factions began fighting each other (indeed, the war itself—similarly to Earth's European history—was called by different names: "The Imperial Civil War," "The Mutiny," "The Time of Destruction," etc.). However, it was what they were in relation to the previous regime that spawned them, thereby making the difference notable. Does that make sense? GethralkinHyperwave 00:45, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm curious to know why someone has added the "Unsigned" templates to Bonsly's objections above. While all user comments are required to be signed, this rule has always been interpreted in the context of nomination pages as meaning that just one timestamp is needed to sign all of the objections made by a user at one time. I don't see why things should be any different here. --Jinzler 13:55, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
    • Bonslywizard did not sign his objection vote at the beginning as is standard, so I could not tell who made the comments. There have been several times when comments were made and then other users addressed each itemization so it obscured who was who. Rules for signing comments is outlined in the Wookieepedia:Signature policy. GethralkinHyperwave 14:16, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am fully aware of our signature policy, but it seems that we have differing interpretations of it. Regarding your confusion, when users make a large number of objections to an article on a nominations page at one time, it is commonplace for them to choose only to sign the last objection. You can thus tell who made the objections and when by looking at the bottom of the listed objections, to see who has signed them. This is compliant with the signature policy, because where objections are made together, they can be seen as one combined comment, and so only one signature is needed to serve them, and this should be enough to show who made the comment. Furthermore, if you take a look at the Featured articles nominations page and the Good article nominations page, you will see that the method of making objections used by Bonsly above is regularly used by many users, including administrators and members of the Inquisitorius. It is therefore a seemingly valid interpretation of the signature policy and is used on Wookieepedia on a regular basis. If you believe this interpretation is incorrect, then I recommend you take your concerns to the Senate Hall. I urge you to reconsider your use of the "Unsigned" template on Bonsly's comments above, because he has done nothing wrong. --Jinzler 14:47, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
        • This topic is perhaps better suited to User Talk pages, as it distracts from this page's purpose. Please leave me a message if you wish to discuss it further. Thanks. GethralkinHyperwave 16:47, May 10, 2011 (UTC)