Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Darth Desolous

< 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.

Darth Desolous

  • Nominated by: QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 20:10, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Mildly badass.

(3 Inqs/4 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. He's tall and grey, with sharp spiky teeth, and cuts all up and down his face. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 11:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  2. I support the nomination on the grounds of the text and information, though I do critisize the lack of images. We need a good StarkillerVsDesolous pic. Jensaarai 10:00, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote A-OK, QGJ! —Tommy 9281 Sunday, February 27, 2011, 23:38 UTC
  4. Inqvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:27, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
  5. SinisterSamurai 05:51, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Menkooroo 06:08, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:43, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Object

*Both the intro and the body should link to Starkiller's Trial of Skill, the battle he had with Marek.--ID-21 Dolphin DolphinJedi(Talk) 01:27, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Nayayen
  • The date for Operation: Knightfall isn't explicitly given as 19 BBY in ROTS. Is there a guide (NEC?) that you can source this to more correctly?
    • Done.
  • As I've said above, I added some links where they were missing but otherwise nicely written. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 20:36, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Amerie: One Thing
  • If there is no article for Desolus' form of martial arts, there should be. That's all. Hey QGJ!—Tommy 9281 Sunday, February 6, 2011, 14:00 UTC
Yarp
  • The Master's fall: Desolous's training of an army of Pau'ans, and the entire second paragraph of the Biography section is sourced simply to The Force Unleashed, rather than its databank. (His death on Yaga Minor, for instance, is attributed to the databank in the infobox.) Does all of this information come from cutscene dialogue and/or ambient combat dialogue during the fight with Desolous? And if so, is the Desolous Simulacrum a reliable narrator? SinisterSamurai 15:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • That information does come from the databank. Must've been a sourcing mistake on my part.
      • In Powers and abilities you switch sources again from the databank (capable of murdering several Jedi) to sourcing the game (Took the entire council to bring him down). I see that the bit about being defeated by an entire council is quoted, but I'm wondering whether or not that information is fallible. Is that something that happened (databank) or something he claimed happened (dialogue)? SinisterSamurai 20:19, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
        • The Jedi Council part comes only from the dialogue. Seeing as this simulation was created by the Jedi and, unlike Darth Phobos, was not aimed at deceiving Padawans, I don't see a reason why it cannot be trusted. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 21:11, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
          • By the same token, however, there is no reason to trust it. It is either a holographic simulation of a Sith, or a Force Construct of a Sith. Either way, Sith are known for lies, and in the movies, Jedi Obi-Wan is responsible for a major mistruth. You say the trial was designed to test the weaknesses of Galen Marek, who is gullible enough to believe the lies of Darth Vader. Lies can be used to a demoralizing effect if they are believed. This is all argument, but the fact is that Desolous claims it took the entire council to stop him. You are assuming that the Jedi wouldn't construct a hologram of/allow the force to manifest a liar or braggart. SinisterSamurai 21:40, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
            • Point taken. Please take a look at the new wording. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 18:44, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
              • That works quite well. Sorry to be such a punk about it. :) SinisterSamurai 20:30, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Legacy: I watched a rough Youtube video of the level. How does the TFU game tell us that he was constructed from projectors? (Particularly in light of your discussion w/ Purpilia.) Is that game script or another databank entry? SinisterSamurai 16:29, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • That's my main gripe; neither the game nor the databank tell us that. The information about the projectors has been added by Purpilia. If you read through the aforementioned discussion, you'll see that I don't agree with that change. And so until the conflict has been resolved, I can do nothing to address this objection.
      • I see. That argument was on Talk:Darth Desolous conflict, rather than Talk:Darth Desolous, so I didn't realize he was editing this nominated page. I passed a comment to Purpilia on his talk page. Bringing his objections up as actual objections, rather than disruptive edit warring, seems to be the better way to go. I'm probably not going to strike the objection until that bit is sourced or removed, though. SinisterSamurai 20:19, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
  • Legacy: 3 BBY needs a source. I've seen TFUII commentary that TFU was 2 years before A New Hope. SinisterSamurai 16:29, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • TFU is set in 3 BBY-2 BBY. The first part up until the confrontation on the Executor is 3 BBY; the rest of the game is 2 BBY.
      • I believe you, but to my knowledge, that date isn't in the game anywhere. Just like the above 19 BBY objection, that date needs to be sourced or removed. SinisterSamurai 20:19, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
        • I've sourced it to the novel, which has its dates straight. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 21:11, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
  • Behind the scenes: You mention that the character is featured in a level exclusive to certain versions of the game. Would it be worth mentioning that Desolous and the Trial don't appear in the novel or comic, which are not games? SinisterSamurai 15:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I don't see the point. We list characters' appearances, not non-appearances. Going by the logic you suggest, we might as well say that he didn't appear in Revenge of the Sith or A New Hope.
      • Fair enough. I only meant it for inclusion as a contradiction between sources, which is a common enough inclusion in some other FA Bts sections. SinisterSamurai 20:19, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
  • Behind the scenes: "In The Force Unleashed, entering PAUAN as a cheat code enables Darth Desolous as a playable character skin." Could you tie this sentence to the previous sentence indicating version exclusives? "In those versions of The Force Unleashed..." or some such? PAUAN does not work on the Xbox 360 or PS3 versions. SinisterSamurai 15:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • I thought that was kinda self-explanatory, but whatever, I've changed it.
  • Behind the scenes: In your discussion w/ Purpilia, Purps mentions that Dan Wallace intended to reference the Desolous fight in whatever book that was. That deserves a Bts mention, regardless of the final outcome of the debate. SinisterSamurai 15:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • I do intend to mention it. However, I'll need to source it somehow, and so I need a link to Dan's post. Which once again brings us to the debate. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 18:19, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Desolous
  • Do you think that "formerly" belongs next to affiliations in the infobox? As the article is about his whole life, rather than one specific period of time, isn't it better to just list everything he's been a part of and leave it at that? I've never really seen a "formerly" stuck next to "Rebel Alliance" for characters who later go on to serve the New Republic, and, as Desolous dies, "formerly" technically applies to everything.
    • The way I see it, it's more like the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader scenario, in which we list Jedi Order with a note (as Anakin) and Order of the Sith Lords with a note (as Vader) and so on. The only difference here is that we don't know Desolous' birth name. I just wanted to note this. I'll remove it if you want me to, no problem. However, if you have any suggestions regarding which word(s) to use instead "formerly," that would be even better.
      • That's a good analogy, actually. I hadn't considered that. Maybe word it something like... "As a Jedi?" It's simple, but it works. Menkooroo 15:58, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
  • The leading quote of Powers and abilities: Is that from any sort of text file, or is it just audio from the video game? If the former, a [sic] might be in order, as it should be "its" rather than "it's." If the latter, change it and we'll call it a deal. :)
    • It's a deal!
  • There's a bit of tense switching in the bts --- his appearance in TFU is ambiguous, but the game implied --- maybe better to stick with present tense when talking about the game and The Jedi Path? Menkooroo 17:47, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

The projector versus Force-construct debate

So, as requested, I am moving the debate here. Basically, my opinion is that The Jedi path's information overrides the game's claim of a Force-construct or it should just be left ambiguous as there are conflicting sources. While TJP does not name Desolous, it is quite obvious that he is intended to be one of the Sith in the program per the author's comments on his blog. I understand both sides of the debate, but obviously I think Wallace's view makes more sense. I personally prefer newer sources, and the connection is obvious and common sense to me, but I understand that the Wook's policy doesn't always allow for common sense.Purpilia 02:48, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

  • Do you have a direct link to these blog comments? SinisterSamurai 16:59, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
    • Daniel Wallace's endnotes, part 3Purpilia 04:04, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
      • All right, seeing as this seems to be going nowhere and something needs to be done, here's a compromise. I'll keep the nature of the simulation ambiguous in the in-universe parts of the article. In the Bts, I'll note both possible explanations, leaving the readers to decide for themselves which one they like. What do you think? QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 22:26, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Might we just specify "Yaga Minor" in the infobox death field? We usually don't specify conflicts, just locations and dates.
    • Done. I just felt "Yaga Minor" was a bit lacking.
  • Per the similar objection made previously on one of your noms, I would recommend removing author mentions in this context: "Desolous later received a brief entry in The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia by Stephen J. Sansweet and Pablo Hidalgo." Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:08, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
    • Addressed.
  • I'm unsure about the formality of its name, but if the Seventh Battle of Ruusan is a conjectural title for that conflict, this article should avoid referring to it in such formal terms: "...installed inside the Jedi Temple after the Seventh Battle of Ruusan." Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:13, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 17:43, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

  • There's been some disagreement between me and Purpilia regarding the nature of the Jedi Temple simulations. In order to avoid an edit war I welcome others to weigh in. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 10:25, February 26, 2011 (UTC)