- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Battle of Sullust (Clone Wars)
- Nominated by: CC7567 (talk) 02:38, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Season Three's best space battle, by far. WP:TCW.
(4 Inqs/3 Users/7 Total)
Support
IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:39, June 7, 2011 (UTC)- Pretty sad seeing as the Resolute is so present in LSW.--ID-21 Dolphin
(Talk) 20:43, June 11, 2011 (UTC) - Watch, CC. TCW will show the Resolute again, and someone will claim they never meant to destroy the ship. :P JangFett (Talk) 03:40, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with JangFett. Teff 02:05, June 24, 2011 (UTC)(Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Wookieepedia:Sock puppetry -- Menkooroo 07:12, July 15, 2011 (UTC))
- Kilson(Let's have a chat) 18:07, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Menkooroo 16:57, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
--Eyrezer 10:49, July 30, 2011 (UTC)- Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:01, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
Object
Jeff
I know I'm a stickler about this, but per the CT, I can't really find any unique canonical info in either of the first two sw.com articles listed in the "Sources" section. A First mention isn't unique anymore once the subject appears in a released product, and in the discussion of the original CT, we specifically mentioned interviews as articles that aren't "Sources." External links? Thoughts?Menkooroo 00:47, July 25, 2011 (UTC)- The unique info would be the first mention of the battle, which was unique at the time, regardless of how indirect it was. The CT in question doesn't provide a specific definition of "unique"—whether it's unique at the time of the source's publication or unique overall. I don't see a problem with keeping the articles as Sources, since they did offer unique information at the time of their publication—plus, we don't override first mentions in any other case not concerning SW.com articles. The fact of the matter is that the battle was first mentioned at Celebration V, and those two articles need to be listed in the Sources to foster consistency between the Sources and the explanation in the Bts. Inconsistency would not be desirable here. Thanks for the review. CC7567 (talk) 03:12, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk by pushing the issue, and I want to establish that I'm not fanatical about this or anything; however, in the interest of good-natured discussion, I do feel it prudent to point out that the CT's discussion specifically made allowances for sw.com articles only temporarily being in the Sources section: "So, for example, a preview of a TCW episode would be a source until the episode aired. Unless the preview included some cut content, or something --- then it would have unique bts info." The idea was that if an article on sw.com which didn't fall under the definition of "source material" (also defined in the discussion) was the first source to mention something, it would only be counted as a source until actual source material mentioning/featuring the something in question was released, at which point the sw.com article would be removed from the "Sources" section to make way for actual Sources. It's always been my understanding that (First mentioned) means "First mentioned in canon" rather than "First mentioned in canon or in an interview," and as such, removing the two articles in question from the Sources section wouldn't create any sort of inconsistency. I mean, if a comic author first mentioned an upcoming character in a third-party interview, stating such in the bts but keeping said interview as an external link would be OK. Thoughts? Menkooroo 04:20, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm gonna hop in here, because this conversation is related to your (Menk's) comments on the Sacking of Coruscant nomination below. I really think we need to discuss the wording of that CT, which hasn't really been problematic up until now. The way I see it, an article that is not "unique" in terms of canon information is not useless, particularly in this instance. The Battle of Sullust was mentioned in an interview, and that was the first mention or source for this subject. Other sources released since then may have made it "non-unique", but it doesn't change the simple fact that the interview is a source for information on the subject. Ipso facto, it belongs in the "Sources" section. To imply that it is not would be like saying The Essential Chronology is no longer a source because The New Essential Chronology and other sources make the information within the original "non-unique". This would be an entirely different issue if the article in question was just previewing a soon-to-be released DK young readers novel, or previewing a marketing campaign that pictures the battle, but this is not the case. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 07:56, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Comparing apples and oranges isn't relevant here, as the CT was about things on sw.com, not essential chronologies. The difference between an interview on sw.com and The Essential Chronology is that intrinsically, the latter is a source while the former is not. The sentence that was added to WP:CANON after the CT passed may not define "unique," but the "Discussion" section included with the CT did, and it specifically mentioned that articles on sw.com which aren't intrinsically Sources should be removed from the "Sources" section once actual sources/appearances come out. Presumably, everyone who supported the CT read that. The idea behind it was that articles on sw.com that don't fall under the usual definition of a "Source" should only be treated as such if, when all is said and done, they say something that no other Source or Appearance says. I'm not going to argue this point into the ground, and I'll definitely be willing to strike this objection in good faith, but I do want to ensure that everyone has read this, which doesn't seem to be the case right now. Menkooroo 12:40, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Turns out this is anything but a simple issue, and Trayus and I have continued the discussion on our talk pages. In any case, it doesn't detract from the quality of the article, so I'm happy to strike and support. I'd like to apologize for my vehemence; I often come off a little strongly in these kinds of situations. It's definitely a very well-written article. Good job. :) Menkooroo 16:57, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Comparing apples and oranges isn't relevant here, as the CT was about things on sw.com, not essential chronologies. The difference between an interview on sw.com and The Essential Chronology is that intrinsically, the latter is a source while the former is not. The sentence that was added to WP:CANON after the CT passed may not define "unique," but the "Discussion" section included with the CT did, and it specifically mentioned that articles on sw.com which aren't intrinsically Sources should be removed from the "Sources" section once actual sources/appearances come out. Presumably, everyone who supported the CT read that. The idea behind it was that articles on sw.com that don't fall under the usual definition of a "Source" should only be treated as such if, when all is said and done, they say something that no other Source or Appearance says. I'm not going to argue this point into the ground, and I'll definitely be willing to strike this objection in good faith, but I do want to ensure that everyone has read this, which doesn't seem to be the case right now. Menkooroo 12:40, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm gonna hop in here, because this conversation is related to your (Menk's) comments on the Sacking of Coruscant nomination below. I really think we need to discuss the wording of that CT, which hasn't really been problematic up until now. The way I see it, an article that is not "unique" in terms of canon information is not useless, particularly in this instance. The Battle of Sullust was mentioned in an interview, and that was the first mention or source for this subject. Other sources released since then may have made it "non-unique", but it doesn't change the simple fact that the interview is a source for information on the subject. Ipso facto, it belongs in the "Sources" section. To imply that it is not would be like saying The Essential Chronology is no longer a source because The New Essential Chronology and other sources make the information within the original "non-unique". This would be an entirely different issue if the article in question was just previewing a soon-to-be released DK young readers novel, or previewing a marketing campaign that pictures the battle, but this is not the case. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 07:56, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk by pushing the issue, and I want to establish that I'm not fanatical about this or anything; however, in the interest of good-natured discussion, I do feel it prudent to point out that the CT's discussion specifically made allowances for sw.com articles only temporarily being in the Sources section: "So, for example, a preview of a TCW episode would be a source until the episode aired. Unless the preview included some cut content, or something --- then it would have unique bts info." The idea was that if an article on sw.com which didn't fall under the definition of "source material" (also defined in the discussion) was the first source to mention something, it would only be counted as a source until actual source material mentioning/featuring the something in question was released, at which point the sw.com article would be removed from the "Sources" section to make way for actual Sources. It's always been my understanding that (First mentioned) means "First mentioned in canon" rather than "First mentioned in canon or in an interview," and as such, removing the two articles in question from the Sources section wouldn't create any sort of inconsistency. I mean, if a comic author first mentioned an upcoming character in a third-party interview, stating such in the bts but keeping said interview as an external link would be OK. Thoughts? Menkooroo 04:20, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- The unique info would be the first mention of the battle, which was unique at the time, regardless of how indirect it was. The CT in question doesn't provide a specific definition of "unique"—whether it's unique at the time of the source's publication or unique overall. I don't see a problem with keeping the articles as Sources, since they did offer unique information at the time of their publication—plus, we don't override first mentions in any other case not concerning SW.com articles. The fact of the matter is that the battle was first mentioned at Celebration V, and those two articles need to be listed in the Sources to foster consistency between the Sources and the explanation in the Bts. Inconsistency would not be desirable here. Thanks for the review. CC7567 (talk) 03:12, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 13:01, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
- As a heads-up, I will be out of town from June 2 to June 11, so I will address any straggling objections when I return. CC7567 (talk) 02:38, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Since the battle is rather fast-paced, if anyone disagrees with any of the starship numbers listed under "Strength," let me know and I will point you to specifically where in the episode I recorded the numbers. Making sure that those numbers were right was actually one of the most difficult parts of writing the article—which is actually a compliment to the battle's intensity. CC7567 (talk) 02:38, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Not really an objection, but there's a lot of Confederate/Separatist wording around with not a lot of consistency. What do you think? JangFett (Talk) 03:40, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the quotes exchanged between more than one person use the dialogue template? – Karohalva 20:45, July 26, 2011 (UTC)