- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Battle of Almak
- Nominated by: Darth Morrt 12:08, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:non-conjectural title
(2 ECs/2 Users/4 Total)
Support
- NAYAYEN 22:32, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good.--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 13:06, July 27, 2011 (UTC) 
The quote was unsourced but I got it. Menkooroo 03:13, July 28, 2011 (UTC)- ~Savage
18:10, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
Object
Reading "Praji viewed the walkers..." begs the question; are there any possible quotes at all?NAYAYEN 16:49, July 25, 2011 (UTC)- No, there is not. The whole article is based on one sentence of the source. Darth Morrt 22:26, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll strike this, as it depends on the wording of said sentence, but I've had an article where the quote given is the entire mention of the subject. NAYAYEN 22:32, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a similar quote, since the source is in-universe. Darth Morrt 09:38, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll strike this, as it depends on the wording of said sentence, but I've had an article where the quote given is the entire mention of the subject. NAYAYEN 22:32, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- No, there is not. The whole article is based on one sentence of the source. Darth Morrt 22:26, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Jedi
I think that you should mention the in-universe work, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Praji: A Cartel of Genes, and the author, Dr. Gabrel Treon, in the body of the article. You should just mention that a historian named <insert name here> spoke of the battle in <insert name of work here>, or something else along those lines. A brief mention is all that it needs.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 03:44, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Darth Morrt 09:00, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Bob
Can you explain reference 3 and how it suffices to support the date? I'd say we need canon sources to support that, not the author's blog.- Sorry to intrude, but it seems to me that a blog stating the authot's intentions should be considered a source.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 15:38, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
- The last section of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Praji is titled "Inheritance (10-104)." This implys that the in-universe author wrote it in 104 ABY, but IMO it is not clear enough. On the other hand, O'Keefe's states in his blog directly, that the article was written in 104 ABY. IMO, the Star Wars blogs, especially these endnotes-type blogs should be considered official sources, since they state fact that for some reason wasn't included in the source. A similar example is Wallace's blog, where he connects previously unidentified places to new planets of the Atlas. Darth Morrt 17:13, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
I see where you're going, but you should probably cite the article itself in conjunction with the blog so we have a canon source + authorial intent for the date, not just authorial intent. That's the difference. ~Savage 19:23, July 31, 2011 (UTC)- Done. Darth Morrt 11:09, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
- The last section of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Praji is titled "Inheritance (10-104)." This implys that the in-universe author wrote it in 104 ABY, but IMO it is not clear enough. On the other hand, O'Keefe's states in his blog directly, that the article was written in 104 ABY. IMO, the Star Wars blogs, especially these endnotes-type blogs should be considered official sources, since they state fact that for some reason wasn't included in the source. A similar example is Wallace's blog, where he connects previously unidentified places to new planets of the Atlas. Darth Morrt 17:13, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to intrude, but it seems to me that a blog stating the authot's intentions should be considered a source.--Exiled Jedi
Also, the date should be added to the infobox, provided we can provide a date. ~Savage 14:06, July 31, 2011 (UTC)- The battle took place during the Dark Times, before 1 BBY, but nothing more. Darth Morrt 17:13, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
Where are you getting the date of 1 BBY for the "dark times"? ~Savage 19:23, July 31, 2011 (UTC)- Mentioning Dark Times, I mean the Imperial Period. The battle of Almak is mentioned in a section titled "A Model Officer (37-1 ABY)", and the last-but-one subsection mentions the battle itself. IIRC, once I was objected that "before x BBY"-like dates are no-no for infoboxes. But maybe I'm wrong. Should I add "Between 19 and 1 BBY" to the infobox? Darth Morrt 11:09, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, if there's an infobox date, it should be as specific as possible, so if you can establish a range of 19 BBY to 1 BBY, that's more specific and preferable to "before 1 BBY." IMO, anyway! :) ~Savage 14:03, August 1, 2011 (UTC)- Done. Darth Morrt 14:13, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Now you just need to source the body text's date in the same way, and I'm a support vote. ~Savage 18:09, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Darth Morrt 14:13, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Mentioning Dark Times, I mean the Imperial Period. The battle of Almak is mentioned in a section titled "A Model Officer (37-1 ABY)", and the last-but-one subsection mentions the battle itself. IIRC, once I was objected that "before x BBY"-like dates are no-no for infoboxes. But maybe I'm wrong. Should I add "Between 19 and 1 BBY" to the infobox? Darth Morrt 11:09, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
- The battle took place during the Dark Times, before 1 BBY, but nothing more. Darth Morrt 17:13, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
Comments