Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/181st Imperial Fighter Group

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

181st Imperial Fighter Group

  • Nominated by: Havac 03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:

(5 Inqs/1 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. 181stAce 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Excellent. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Thefourdotelipsis 06:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote One-Eighty-Best. - Lord Hydronium 08:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Surely there's more that can be said in the BTS section. There's at least one retcon to explain, right? Maybe check some Stackpole interviews for more info? -- Ozzel 10:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't recall any retcons, and I've checked all the interviews I had for Soontir Fel himself, and Stackpole never talks about the 181st, just about Fel. The 181st is just a vehicle for that character, so it doesn't get talked about that much in and of itself. Havac 17:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The 181st got retconned into the events of The Empire Strikes Back, Shadows of the Empire, and Return of the Jedi, as indicated by The Making of Baron Fel. Shock Wave 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • They're not retcons. If it there was something saying "these specific fighters in ROTJ are the 181st," then it would be. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Then shouldn't Shadows of the Empire be removed from Appearances as well? 181stAce 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. I'd like to see the paragraph of information about the "fake" 181st expanded into its own section; this is a major plot point for Aaron Allston's Wraith Squadron novels and, as such, has a lot more material to be explored, including the battles that the impostor unit participated in, as well as how the trickery with the droid fighters was discovered. Also, this use of the unit by Allston should warrant a mention in the BtS.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But that's got not a damn thing to do with the 181st. If you want information about that, we really should have an article on Impostor 181st Imperial Fighter Group. All the information that's actually relevant to the 181st -- the fact that a duplicate unit was created, that it briefly fooled NRI, and was subsequently exposed -- is in the article. I mean, do we need ten sections in Palpatine on the Second Imperium fakeup of him and everything that fakeup did? Or do we just mention that there was a scam, give the details that are actually relevant to Palpatine and his legacy, and move on? Havac 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Whatever about the IU stuff, a mention in the BtS is definitely needed, since Zsinj's fake was originally thought to be the real thing (I recall a fan letter complaining about it printed in one of the issues of Rogue Squadron). -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Objection overridden by Inquisitorius 23:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Toprawa:
    • Please organize source list by correct OOU publication date. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Though he didn't mention it here for some reason, he has done that. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Culator, if Havac can't log in, he can't edit the WP:FAN page. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Ah. Right. Makes sense. Well someone had to notify Toprawa anyway. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Inquisitorius vote to strike above objection by Goodwood

  1. Inqvote As Havac explains above, more information on the impostor 181st would be irrelevant to the subject of the article. Goodwood was spoken to over IRC and stated that he would not strike it unless more information were added or the three sentences on it were given an entirely separate section, leaving two extremely tiny sections in a row. Since both of those would be to the detriment of the article, and Goodwood made it clear he would not discuss it further, I think all we can do is strike. - Lord Hydronium 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Doesn't want to continue discussion, too bad. Thefourdotelipsis 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote The objection is nonsensical. Is there a paragraph about the actor Timothy Bottoms in the middle of an encyclopedia article about George W. Bush? No. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Sorry Goodwood. Explanations make sense. Chack Jadson (Talk) 18:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Graestan(Talk) 03:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to Inquisitorius vote

  1. Inqvote Goodwood's just shown in IRC that he does want to continue discussion, when attempted the right way. He says he'll strike if just a bit more info and links to the battles where they fooled people are added, which I think is fair. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote I don't care if one side is "right" or not. Unless it's blatantly against the rules or the case of the absentee objector, I think we should be very sparing in using this power; if Goodwood's willing to keep up a dialogue and work with Havac to reach an agreement, then I'm not inclined to strike the objection. If he was stone-walling, it'd be a different story. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm not a fan of the way the Zsinj-impostor thing is sourced. You have two sentences with three references tacked on at the end, but these aren't really helpful or accurate. Wraith Squadron is reffed to, but it isn't established that Tetran Cowell was masquerading as Fel in that novel, so it is a bit misleading. If you understand what I'm saying. I'm not sure if this is repeated throughout the article. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Resourced. Havac 00:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't so much an objection as a question, but why don't the "Commanders" and "Members" section have any sort of "ultimate fate" type thing. Granted, its not wholly relevant to the 181st, but one sentence saying what happened to them would be okay, IMHO. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I considered that, but I ultimately decided that a description of their time in the 181st itself was enough. Otherwise, I'd get into, "Soontir Fel defected to the New Republic, then Thrawn convinced him to redefect, and then he was in this thing called the Empire of the Hand, until he was in the Chiss Ascendancy, and he had six kids but three of them died, and eventually his descendants ruled the Empire but we don't know how." It would be a lot of information at a very low level of detail that doesn't add much to the understanding of the 181st. Ultimately, if you want more information about what happened to them later, you click the link -- I just didn't want to get too distracted into chronicling the career of Evir Derricote and Soontir Fel and Turr Phennir instead of chronicling the 181st. Havac 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not making this an objection since I don't believe in image-based objections, but File:Brentaal-181st.jpg, File:X-wing_23_06.jpg, and File:X-wing_24_07.jpg could stand to be replaced. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)