Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/T81 Division

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

T81 Division

  • Nominated by: GethralkinHyperwave 16:43, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Star Wars PocketModel TCG/TCW tie-in unit

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Nice job. After you removed the references in the intro, I consider this ready for CA.—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 16:27, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Object

  1. "TK Tri-Nine"
    • Needs referencing, as there are multiple sources and appearances.—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 16:54, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • References supplied. GethralkinHyperwave 14:09, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
        • Looks better. I gave it a copy-edit, and will decide whether there are any more issues later.—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 15:03, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • Lacks Star Wars Annual 2011 info: the date for Mission to Rugosa has been supplied.—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 16:54, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
    • Some links are missing.—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 16:54, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • This should be a quick "do-it-yourself" fix. (Or at least you could tell the nominator which links exactly you've noticed to be missing.) Imperators II(Talk) 19:16, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
    • Since the article has only 108 words (period), I don't think it is necessary to make it have an intro and headings. If the need for sub-sectioning arises, then it should have __NOTOC__ for better legibility.—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 16:54, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • Just to interject, a CA may be subsectioned according to the LG if the nominator so chooses. This isn't against the CA rules. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 17:37, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
  2. GTQ
    • Correct me if I am wrong but I don not believe that you should have sources in the introduction GTQ(Problems?) 21:56, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
      • It is permissible. See Xizor as a reference. GethralkinHyperwave 16:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
        • It is not permissible. Xizor is not an article of status and the reference is marking the pronunciation of his name, not information in the paragraph. Remove them. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 17:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Axinal
    • Please source EVERYTHING in the infobox.
    • Could we get context on Asajj Ventress, 224, and Jek, Rys, and Thire?
      • I see context on Ventress and the clones, but 224 could still use some.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 16:37, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
        • Context still needed on all of the above.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 01:02, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
          • Nice work on the context in the body, but Asajj Ventress and 224 could use some context in the intro as well. However, the article is now 291 words, and thus qualifies as a good article nomination.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 21:52, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
            • 249 words not including Bts, which can be allowed. What do you think? GethralkinHyperwave 07:37, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
              • Actually, it's not allowed. The BTS is always included in the word count, per rule #13: "...counting the introduction, the article body, and "Behind the scenes" material, must not exceed 250 words in length (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc). Any articles exceeding the limit should be taken to the Good article nominations page for consideration."—Axinal Convocation Chamber 09:12, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
                • Oops. Late at night edit, and I glanced at the History and thought it was the Bts. GethralkinHyperwave 17:42, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
                  • I personally would have rather seen the article go to GAN than shortened to stay within the confines of a CAN, but that's not a formal objection. Nevertheless, I believe some expansion is necessary. In the intro, why did Ventress send the battalion to Rugosa? Also, in the history section, I think the battle could be explained in greater detail, rather than just the fact that the battalion was "routed."—Axinal Convocation Chamber 02:46, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe SWA 2011 places most of TCW around 21 BBY, so "Circa 21 BBY" might be better than "In 21 BBY"—Axinal Convocation Chamber 22:04, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, the article is missing a BTS.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 22:05, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
      • The BTS could still use some expansion; you should mention "Ambush", because it's its first appearance, and mention that it received its name in the TCG.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 16:37, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
        • Does the BTS imply that the TCG came before "Ambush"? If so, why is "Ambush" listed as its first appearance? Even if the TCG only has a picture, it could still be listed as its first appearance, with a (Picture only) template after it.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 01:58, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
          • I was told by several members (including an admin) that TCGs did not count as appearances. Only as sources. GethralkinHyperwave 08:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
            • That's true in the sense that they go under the Sources section rather than the Appearances section, but it still deserves a (First pictured) template at the very least.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 22:48, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
    • This is just a question out of sheer curiosity, not an objection per se: How is it that we know that the division we see in "Ambush" is the T81? Is that established in the TCG?—Axinal Convocation Chamber 02:46, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes. The Division is named on the miniatures and vehicle units from the Division appear in a couple of the cards featuring scenes from the episode. GethralkinHyperwave 05:52, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Rubedo
    • Mention that they appeared in TCW in the BTS.
    • Why the double refs on everything? One would suffice.
    • Context on 224.
    • Asajj should be mentioned in the intro.
    • Where is the article on B1 battle droid 2?
      • droid 2 is a different article. Not sure what naming conventions got them sorted that way. GethralkinHyperwave 08:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
        • Then change 3 to 2 on the Rugosa Droid article. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:29, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
          • I am using most of my time on the articles that I am working on without having to worry about articles other people have written. Besides, I removed the references to the droid two days ago, so it shouldn't matter. GethralkinHyperwave 23:12, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
            • They still need to be referenced in the article because they are members of the Division. You can't omit them just because the notable members section was removed. Move the article and mention them in the history somehow. You're working on your article by moving the other article to the correct position. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 05:42, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
    • The Notable Members section should be axed unless you're willing to turn it into a semi-Main Characters section.
      • Generally, unidentified members that don't do much aren't consided "notable" anyway. Just don't include them in the infobox and mention them in the body.
      • Removed. Except for the B2-HA commander. GethralkinHyperwave 08:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
        • The two droids should still be mentioned in the prose. How do you know the B2 held a command position (as the body says) and why is he notable? He just shot at one of the clone troopers. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:29, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
          • As I stated, I removed the two B1 droids—please check the article. As for the B2-HA, they are used as commanders. Except in this episode where it isn't observed conversing with other droids, non-OOMs address [[Unidentified B2-HA series super battle droid (Rodia)|B2-HAs as "sir,"]] making it pretty obvious they have higher rank even when they aren't shown giving commands or leading, as they do in the battles of Christophsis, Devaron, for instance. GethralkinHyperwave 23:12, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
            • OK, but higher rank doesn't automaticaly equate to command status over the Division. You need a source specfically saying that this particular droid held such a position. Again, you still need to mention the B2s in the prose. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 05:42, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
              • Okay, fixed. The B2s were already mentioned. I think you mean B1s, which I have now included. GethralkinHyperwave 07:37, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure if we can say for certain that that B1 is part of the T81. He didn't take part in the ground assault, but was instead stationed on a ship in space. If we can discern that he was from the T81, then his mention should come earlier and it should explain what he did. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 04:18, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
                  • Which B1? You are not being specific. There are two articles of B1s from Rugosa—that I have included at your insistence—and both of them are not particularly notable. GethralkinHyperwave 07:44, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
                    • Looks like the admins agree with me. It's been deleted as not being notable enough, and the other is not verifiable as belonging to T81. GethralkinHyperwave 07:56, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
                    • You included them in the article. I had you keep them in the prose because I trusted that you had verified them as part of the T81 because they were in the members sections. Regardless of notability, if they have an article and are part of a group, they get mentioned. It's as simple as that. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 18:56, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
                      • I was not the one who put them in the article. Grand Moff Hopkins put them there. I added them to the prose because of the objection you raised to do so. Furthermore, this is the reason for admin deletion: "19:39, May 21, 2011 CC7567 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Unidentified B1 battle droid 2 (Rugosa)" ‎ (I'm not seeing proof of notability)." So, as you see, notability does factor into this. GethralkinHyperwave 00:33, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
                        • Notability has to do with whether of not the characters have their own articles. If an article on the droid exists and it is a member of the Division, the droid should be mentioned in the Division's article. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 02:35, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
    • Each member from the infobox needs to be mentioned in the prose.
    • Is this an armored division or a battalion? Pick one descriptor, use it for both intro and body.
      • A droid battalion is a subdivision of a droid Division. Different organizational structure than the Republic uses. GethralkinHyperwave 08:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
        • Do you have a source that says this was just a battalion and not the whole Divison? NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:29, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
          • Please look at the article. Reference 4 cites the source. GethralkinHyperwave 23:12, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
    • Context on the bid to secure a treaty with Katuunko.
    • Are they part of the CIS or the Trade Federation? The infobox says the Droid army belongs to the CIS, not the TF.
    • It seems liike Asajj should be listed as a founder.
      • Nope. There is no evidence that she founded the Division. Only that she had it assigned to her. GethralkinHyperwave 08:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
    • That's it for now. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 17:24, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
    • Is merely saying "T81" a canonical shortening of "T81 Division"? NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 18:56, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes. Just as saying 501st is just as canonical as saying 501st Legion. If the term Division is a common designation of a military group or subgroup, then it works as a label instead of a unique moniker. SInce there are several Divisions in the Droid Separatist Army, then the term Division is not unique. The alphanumeric preceding the group category is the unique operand. Therefore, "T81" is understood as "T81 Division" when the article initially puts it in context. The use of 501st and 212th follows the same line of logic. GethralkinHyperwave 00:33, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
        • The difference there is that those two are from another military outfit and have both been explicitly referenced as "501st" and "212th." If they had not, it wouldn't be appropriate to call them those names in their articles. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 15:45, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
    • Looking back upon it, the context on the treaty situation still isn't sufficient. Why was Yioda on Rugosa? Where did these clone troopers come from? The gambling nature of the arrangement needs to be established.
      • Yoda's presence is explained. Gamboling = bid. GethralkinHyperwave 00:33, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
        • He is not explained. Why is he on the planet? Simply saying "bid" does not mean that the Republic was trying to get access to the spaceways as well. I did not mean be more specific about the clones' rank: were they with Yoda the whole time? It does not establish that if they had killed Yodfa, the Separatists would have won the treaty. It doesn't establish that their failure caused the Republic to get the treaty. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 15:45, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
    • [[Unidentified OOM command battle droid (Rugosa)]] Is this the other OOM command droid? If so, then remove references to him in the T81 article. If not, then that OOM needs his own article as [[Unidentified OOM command battle droid (T81 Division)]].
      • This is definitely not necessary. You are, in fact, referencing the wrong droid. There was an OOM—other than the one you have linked in my article—that was standing next to 224 when Ventress gave the two of them orders to find Yoda. He is not shown after he walks away with 224 from that meeting. The only thing known about the OOM's fate is through inference—the OOM was part of the battalion, the entire battalion was destroyed, therefore the OOM was destroyed. Based on the precedent set by the above mentioned B1 article deletion concerning notability, this droid does not seem to deserve an article, either. It should be enough to say in this article that an OOM droid was a commander additional to 224. GethralkinHyperwave 00:33, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
        • Notability is not an issue here: he's notable because he was a commander of the battalion. If you're going to refernce him as a leader of the battalion, he needs his own article. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 15:45, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • Okay, it's been rewritten, so please check it again to see if I have missed anything. Thanks. GethralkinHyperwave 16:50, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • There is still some context missing on individuals like Asajj Ventress and 224, and as the article is currently 244 words by my count, it's likely that after this is added, it will qualify as a good article nomination.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 22:55, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
    • 249 not including the Bts and category headings. GethralkinHyperwave 07:37, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
      • Bts also counts toward the total word count, so it's 271 words. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 16:01, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
        • Hang on. My mistake. I glanced at the wrong section and thought the Bts was the biggest thing on the page. Tired eyes. GethralkinHyperwave 17:42, May 21, 2011 (UTC)