- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Comm 4
- Nominated by: Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 11:52, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Labeled as technology, not a structure.
(2 ECs/1 Users/3 Total)
Support
SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 11:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)- Looks good to me --DarthRageLeave a message after the beep 23:15, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 18:51, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Object
- Soresu
Be more specific about how it was destroyed. Was it disabled by infiltrators? Destroyed in a space battle?Can it be proven that it was created in 32 BBY? Just because it got deployed above Naboo in that year doesn't mean it was manufactured then.SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 23:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)- Context added; and I cannot prove it was created in 32 BBY so I removed the information. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 11:27, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Not Soresu
Keeping the second source as just "The New Essential Chronology" and sticking a source to Battle for Naboo in the middle of the first sentence would be a bit more straightforward than the explanatory note included with your second source. Keep it simple! :^D- While I agree it would be more simple, that was how I was instructed to source 32 BBY.
- Mind if I ask by who? It seems a really roundabout and unnecessary way of referencing. I really think that: "Comm 4 was a communications satellite established by the Trade Federation during its invasion of Naboo[1] in 32 BBY.[2]" would be simpler and better, with [1] going to the video game and [2] going to the NEC without all the explanatory stuff. Menkooroo 04:10, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
- By Tope and Xd on my first [[1]] GAN. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 15:54, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Still seems unnecessary to me. Adding explanatory notes to references should be avoided when it can, and in this case, keeping the referencing simple would say all that needed to be said. Menkooroo 16:27, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Then would it be unnecessary on all the other Invasion of Naboo articles as well? Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 20:10, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. Menkooroo 00:06, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. I see. Well, since there is already a precedent, I will not be making the change.
- Then I will not be striking the objection. We should always strive for simplicity, and the current method of sourcing is needlessly complicated. Menkooroo 02:07, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion: If the NEC does not state that "Disruption of Comm 4" takes place in 32 BBY, then I find that an explanation in the reference is required. -- 1358 (Talk) 16:12, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
- If the game establishes that the disruption of Comm 4 takes place during the Invasion of Naboo, and the NEC establishes that the Invasion of Naboo takes place during 32 BBY, then (in my opinion) the explanation is overkill when we should be keeping it simple. It's like all of the Clone Wars articles that reference Traviss's novelization for the date of 22 BBY --- they simply reference the novelization. They keep it simple. And this case is even more clear-cut than those ones. Menkooroo 03:14, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with adding an explanatory ref note where needed. In this case, the video game does not itself overtly support the 32 BBY date without drawing conclusions from other source material, NEC specifically, for one. The ref note is more precise and more helpful than leaving the reader to draw the unwritten conclusion for themselves. I also think we ought to be spending our time on more worthwhile objections than something as nitpicky and arbitrary as this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:01, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to see what the nominator thinks. As far as precedents go, setting one like this could lead to a lot more needlessly complicated referencing when a simpler solution is available. I agree that there's nothing wrong with adding an explanatory note when needed... but it isn't needed at all in this case (The game establishes that this is in the invasion of Naboo, which the NEC establishes is in 32 BBY --- how would it be drawing conclusions?). I'd be OK striking the objection, but only at the thoughtful advice of the nominator. Menkooroo 18:12, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
- The NEC, IIRC, mentions next to nothing about the adventures in BfN. So a reference note would bring clarity to the source of the date. I have also been using the same reference on the articles for Star Wars: Starfighter, as the same issue exists for that one. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 20:09, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
- You got it. Menkooroo 06:01, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
- The NEC, IIRC, mentions next to nothing about the adventures in BfN. So a reference note would bring clarity to the source of the date. I have also been using the same reference on the articles for Star Wars: Starfighter, as the same issue exists for that one. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 20:09, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to see what the nominator thinks. As far as precedents go, setting one like this could lead to a lot more needlessly complicated referencing when a simpler solution is available. I agree that there's nothing wrong with adding an explanatory note when needed... but it isn't needed at all in this case (The game establishes that this is in the invasion of Naboo, which the NEC establishes is in 32 BBY --- how would it be drawing conclusions?). I'd be OK striking the objection, but only at the thoughtful advice of the nominator. Menkooroo 18:12, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with adding an explanatory ref note where needed. In this case, the video game does not itself overtly support the 32 BBY date without drawing conclusions from other source material, NEC specifically, for one. The ref note is more precise and more helpful than leaving the reader to draw the unwritten conclusion for themselves. I also think we ought to be spending our time on more worthwhile objections than something as nitpicky and arbitrary as this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:01, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- If the game establishes that the disruption of Comm 4 takes place during the Invasion of Naboo, and the NEC establishes that the Invasion of Naboo takes place during 32 BBY, then (in my opinion) the explanation is overkill when we should be keeping it simple. It's like all of the Clone Wars articles that reference Traviss's novelization for the date of 22 BBY --- they simply reference the novelization. They keep it simple. And this case is even more clear-cut than those ones. Menkooroo 03:14, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion: If the NEC does not state that "Disruption of Comm 4" takes place in 32 BBY, then I find that an explanation in the reference is required. -- 1358 (Talk) 16:12, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Then I will not be striking the objection. We should always strive for simplicity, and the current method of sourcing is needlessly complicated. Menkooroo 02:07, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. I see. Well, since there is already a precedent, I will not be making the change.
- Yup. Menkooroo 00:06, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Then would it be unnecessary on all the other Invasion of Naboo articles as well? Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 20:10, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Still seems unnecessary to me. Adding explanatory notes to references should be avoided when it can, and in this case, keeping the referencing simple would say all that needed to be said. Menkooroo 16:27, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
- By Tope and Xd on my first [[1]] GAN. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 15:54, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Mind if I ask by who? It seems a really roundabout and unnecessary way of referencing. I really think that: "Comm 4 was a communications satellite established by the Trade Federation during its invasion of Naboo[1] in 32 BBY.[2]" would be simpler and better, with [1] going to the video game and [2] going to the NEC without all the explanatory stuff. Menkooroo 04:10, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree it would be more simple, that was how I was instructed to source 32 BBY.
Two consecutive sentences beginning with "The Satellite" --- can you change it up?- Indeed I can.
Can you make the bts into two sentences? One-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon.Good work! Menkooroo 00:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC)- Addressed. Thanks for your review. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 20:25, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Article for the base that was disabled as a consequence of the destruction? 1358 (Talk) 18:17, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Check "droid base."
- The link is in there. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 18:41, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Comments