- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Battle of Korriban (Clone Wars)
- Nominated by: Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:10, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Part Four
(2 ECs/0 Users/2 Total)
Support
~Savage
18:52, December 20, 2011 (UTC)- Good job.--Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 21:25, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
Object
"Youmay" goes before "Conjecture".- Adressed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:45, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
If all those events mentioned in the "Concurrent" and "Next" sections of the infobox are indeed accurately placed there, then they need mentions in the article as well.--Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 05:54, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
- No because there is no relation between those events. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:45, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
- As I said above, if they are indeed accurately placed, they need placement in the article. Otherwise, it is infobox exclusive info, and that's no good. It wouldn't be too difficult I wouldn't think to fit them in there somehow. However, I would suggest that you first double check to make sure that these events truly were concurrent and not mistakenly placed there.--Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 22:03, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
- The placement is correct. However, I asked for some assistance. Mentioning all these battles would be completely useless. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:40, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I had already asked an administrator before I had reviewed this article, and he said that the battles needed to be added in the article. So please find a place for them in there somewhere.--Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 15:05, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, ok. Adressed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:56, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Hey guys, it is not necessary to list all of the previous, concurrent, and next battles in the article itself. While we typically strive to include all information in the infobox, that is usually because that information is directly related to the article's content. However, past, present, and future battles often have absolutely nothing to do with the subject battle. Of course, sometimes they will, in which case they should be mentioned regardless of whether or not they're in the infobox, for the simple reason that they affect the subject matter. But in a situation like this, where that is clearly not the case, adding that information is not necessary. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:45, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Jon; it's really just overkill to list every battle that just happens to take place before, after, or around the same time as the subject battle. When it comes to infobox-exclusive information, it's easy to go overboard with wanting to get all of it into the body of the article—in some cases, it's simply not necessary. In this case, it's definitely not necessary, as the other battles listed in the infobox have no relevance to the subject battle. I would urge everyone to be careful in the future about arguing for getting infobox-exclusive info into the body of an article. The more proper thing to look at would not be infobox-exclusivity, but relevance, which isn't the case here. CC7567 (talk) 18:22, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Hey guys, it is not necessary to list all of the previous, concurrent, and next battles in the article itself. While we typically strive to include all information in the infobox, that is usually because that information is directly related to the article's content. However, past, present, and future battles often have absolutely nothing to do with the subject battle. Of course, sometimes they will, in which case they should be mentioned regardless of whether or not they're in the infobox, for the simple reason that they affect the subject matter. But in a situation like this, where that is clearly not the case, adding that information is not necessary. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:45, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, ok. Adressed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:56, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I had already asked an administrator before I had reviewed this article, and he said that the battles needed to be added in the article. So please find a place for them in there somewhere.--Cal Jedi
- The placement is correct. However, I asked for some assistance. Mentioning all these battles would be completely useless. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:40, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
- As I said above, if they are indeed accurately placed, they need placement in the article. Otherwise, it is infobox exclusive info, and that's no good. It wouldn't be too difficult I wouldn't think to fit them in there somehow. However, I would suggest that you first double check to make sure that these events truly were concurrent and not mistakenly placed there.--Cal Jedi
- No because there is no relation between those events. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:45, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
Bob
CJ's right; there can't be any infobox-exclusive info. You could just say something like, "The battle occurred concurrently with other battles on X, Y, Z, and A," and then pipelink Xy, Y, Z, and A to the infobox battles. ~Savage 15:28, December 20, 2011 (UTC)- Done like this. Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:56, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
Comments