Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Wookiee Trade Guild

< 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.

Wookiee Trade Guild

  • Nominated by:— priceline negotiator 22:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: 231 words. I think I can get this to GA with a little more content.

(0 ECs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 13:43, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 03:29, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Object

    • Very good, I'm just not sure that "dismayed" is the right choice of words for the Federation's reaction? Is that how it comes across in Battlefront? I can't remember. Thefourdotelipsis 02:04, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • It was more of just aggravation that an inferior company was not paying their tax. I changed it to aggravation.— priceline negotiator 02:08, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Fett
    • Are you certain that you've checked all sources, post-2004? I.e, CSWE, Battlefront's Prima guide? They may have a mentioning somewhere.
    • Where did this "28 BBY" originate? You keep changing from "In 28 BBY" to "Around 28 BBY."
    • In the history, start the section with what the Wookiee Trade Guild was, then go into the whole Taxing.
    • "The Guild resisted the taxation, much to the aggravation of the Federation," Why did the guild resist to it?
    • You mention the Guild built an army to fight against the Trade Federation's army. Did they create their army as a result to fight the droids? Please clarify.
      • Battlefront doesn't clarify. The Guild just has an army.— priceline negotiator 03:17, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • "[...]began between the Guild's army and the Federation's droid forces, under the leadership of Count Dooku" So Dooku led both armies?
    • The ending of the history is very rough, as you vaguely say "the battle ended because the droids beat the Wookiees." Could you somehow expand the Guild's and their army's role within the battle?
      • In Battlefront, the battle changes everytime, and especially in the first one, there aren't any set objectives or anything, so there's no set story to the battle. I can't really specify the Guild's role in the abttle other than they were defeated.— priceline negotiator 03:17, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • More to come. JangFett (Talk) 03:00, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • Please take a look at the changes that I've made. The whole Dooku sending out the droids flows much better. JangFett (Talk) 19:29, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Soresu
    • More detail on the battle is required. I don't remember the specifics of the level, but the size of the Wookiee army can be determined if there is a reinforcement limit, and events of the battle could be extrapolated from the mission objectives.
      • Reinforcement level, yes. But in the original Battlefront, there are no mission objectives other than the usual (detroying all reinforcements / command post capture). In Battlefront II, there's actually a storyline to the battle.— priceline negotiator 17:46, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • I added the reinforcements to both sides.— priceline negotiator 17:52, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
        • If I may be excused for butting in here, this is an example of pure game mechanics that don't belong here. If we take the Battlefront reinforcement limits as the canonical size of the armies, then the Republic only had 250 clones at the First Battle of Geonosis, which is preposterous. I don't think anything can be taken from the reinforcement limits except that the two armies were of similar size, and even that may be stretching the limits of what is and isn't game mechanics. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 20:49, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I think I should have clarified my meaning further at the beginning. I think that they represent the minimum amount of troops that were there, not the exact number. I treat it like a mission objective; while it doesn't mean that "only" those events happened, you can at least draw that it occurred. I suppose it is debatable though... SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 05:49, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Does it actually specifically say that it was dissolved? If it was, it needs to be clearly stated in the History section. However, destruction of headquarters does not necessarily mean the guild was destroyed. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 03:43, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • You raise a good point. I always assumed the Guild was dissolved...— priceline negotiator 17:46, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
        • I took out the "dissolved" part of the infobox.— priceline negotiator 17:52, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • According to this question and Leland Chee's reply further down the page, the storyline of Star Wars: Battlefront is only S-canon, but the "locations, characters, and technology" are C-canon. That means this article either needs to be tagged with Template:Ambig, or it needs {{Ambigstart}} and {{Ambigend}} in appropriate locations. I am of the opinion that nothing here falls into C-canon as described by Mr. Chee and that the article should simply be tagged Template:Ambig, but I've never dealt with any ambiguous source before, much less a combination S- and C-canon source like Battlefront. Could someone more knowledgeable about this type of thing chime in? —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 23:34, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • IIRC, if it contradicts C- or G- canon in any way, we need to tag it, but if it jives just fine, there's no need for a tag. Thefourdotelipsis 00:11, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's not how I understand S-canon. My understanding is that if S-canon "contradicts C- or G- canon in any way", then it becomes non-canon. It's when both there is no contradiction with higher canon and it is not referenced in a higher canon source (both of which I believe are the case here) that it's ambiguous and needs to be tagged as such. At least, that's how I understood it after spending an hour reading through the Holocron questions thread on SW.com to find the one post that I linked above. Did I completely misunderstand something here? —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 00:17, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not really sure about it, so I'm going to keep the tag off. It doesn't contradict anything right now.— priceline negotiator 01:34, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
        • This is rather infamously a point of contention—the only problem I have with adding the ambig tag is that the wording doesn't quite apply to what S-canon is, and the tag, as far as I'm aware, is only used on content from the "ambiguous RPG magazines." Of course, while pretty much everything from Marvel has been referenced elsewhere by now, I can't recall that we ever put any templates on the isolated Marvel content. This falls into much the same category. Perhaps we should have an S-canon tag or something. But as far as I understood S-canon, being "secondary," it's canon until proven otherwise. Thefourdotelipsis 01:56, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, Star Wars Tales 1–20 are considered S-canon until referenced or contradicted, and we tag them as ambiguous. It seems to me that for the sake of consistency, we should do the same here. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 02:04, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
            • Perhaps, like Thefourdotelipsis says, we should create a template specifically for S-canon sources that have not been contradicted.— priceline negotiator 02:06, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
              • The ambiguous template is fine. Template:Ambig JangFett (Talk) 05:25, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
                • S-canon is canon. It simply takes lower precedence in the case of contradictions. Tales ambiguity exists because some are S-canon, and some are not canon at all. - Lord Hydronium 18:14, June 25, 2010 (UTC)