- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Cult of Darth Phobos
- Nominated by: QuiGonJinn
(Talk) 15:40, April 28, 2011 (UTC) - Nomination comments: CA-to-GA Project Part 7
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:12, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
Now go CAN the battle. :P Kilson(Let's have a chat) 20:47, April 28, 2011 (UTC)- I only have one thing to say- WOW! that article was only mentioned once but is still a good sized piece of work! Darth Needham 23:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
- The sudden rise in Sith enthusiasts is making me a bit nervous...—Tommy 9281 Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 16:59 UTC
CC7567 (talk) 21:10, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Object
Attack of the Clone
It sounds like the TFUII databank should be treated as a source, not an appearance; it's part of the game (which is an appearance), but it doesn't seem to be part of the game's plot. Please clarify.CC7567 (talk) 07:52, May 5, 2011 (UTC)- Makes sense. Fixed. QuiGonJinn (Talk) 14:18, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I kind of disagree with this, after seeing the change made to Darth Desolous's army. We have other instances of non-storyline video game "databank"-like info where we've traditionally just listed the item in the Appearances section since the video game itself in whole is still treated as an Appearance. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:57, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still more inclined to agree with CC on this one. Appearances are IU stories, while Sources are OOU; and in-game databanks certainly look more OOU to me. That being said, I don't have any real preference on how to call it, nor do I care much. If you want it to be Sources, fine; if you want me to change it back to Appearances, that's OK too. QuiGonJinn (Talk) 21:44, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your flexibility; while I do believe the overall source item should be taken into consideration as an Appearance, I think it's fair that we allow CC to respond to this first. Toprawa and Ralltiir
- Since we don't seem to have an official policy on this, I'm a little hesitant to push it one way or the other, but I'd say that it should be a Source. I agree with QuiGon that in-game databanks are more OOU, even though they're found in an IU game that would normally be treated as an Appearance. I think the issue of whether it's a source or appearance is worth taking to the Senate Hall (if not the Consensus Track) for clarification, at least, in any case. I'll hold off striking this objection just yet until everyone is satisfied. CC7567 (talk) 03:15, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
- After thinking about the situation for a few days, it occurred to me that the databanks themselves might very well be IU. In the game, if I recall correctly, the databanks are accessible only inside the Rogue Shadow via a specific databank. I'll have to replay the game to confirm my ideas, but I believe the game is at least inferring that the databanks are in fact the Rogue Shadows', meaning that they are IU and part of the storyline. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 01:55, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
- QuiGon: stemming from Kilson's good point, how exactly can the TFUII databank be accessed? That might be an indication as to specifically whether it's IU or OOU. CC7567 (talk) 19:44, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, it comes to the difference in versions. In the PSP/PS2/Wii versions, which include Phobos, the databank is indeed accessed from the Rogue Shadow, which acts as a sort of in-game hub. However, this is not the case with the PS3/Xbox360/PC versions, wherein the databank is accessed from the pause menu. That makes the databank in the former versions IU, while in the next-gen versions it's OOU. As the article in question falls into the first category, I guess we might say it's an appearance, although this creates sort of a double standard for dealing with TFU articles. QuiGonJinn (Talk) 17:55, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Meh. Well, if it's IU for half of them, I'd say that it should be IU for all of them (or at least treated that way), even if it's not. Even with the inconsistencies, it sounds like it should be treated like an appearance. CC7567 (talk) 07:22, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Very well. As I said before, I don't mind either way. Changed it back. QuiGonJinn (Talk) 16:30, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Very well. As I said before, I don't mind either way. Changed it back. QuiGonJinn
- Meh. Well, if it's IU for half of them, I'd say that it should be IU for all of them (or at least treated that way), even if it's not. Even with the inconsistencies, it sounds like it should be treated like an appearance. CC7567 (talk) 07:22, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, it comes to the difference in versions. In the PSP/PS2/Wii versions, which include Phobos, the databank is indeed accessed from the Rogue Shadow, which acts as a sort of in-game hub. However, this is not the case with the PS3/Xbox360/PC versions, wherein the databank is accessed from the pause menu. That makes the databank in the former versions IU, while in the next-gen versions it's OOU. As the article in question falls into the first category, I guess we might say it's an appearance, although this creates sort of a double standard for dealing with TFU articles. QuiGonJinn
- QuiGon: stemming from Kilson's good point, how exactly can the TFUII databank be accessed? That might be an indication as to specifically whether it's IU or OOU. CC7567 (talk) 19:44, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
- After thinking about the situation for a few days, it occurred to me that the databanks themselves might very well be IU. In the game, if I recall correctly, the databanks are accessible only inside the Rogue Shadow via a specific databank. I'll have to replay the game to confirm my ideas, but I believe the game is at least inferring that the databanks are in fact the Rogue Shadows', meaning that they are IU and part of the storyline. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 01:55, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Since we don't seem to have an official policy on this, I'm a little hesitant to push it one way or the other, but I'd say that it should be a Source. I agree with QuiGon that in-game databanks are more OOU, even though they're found in an IU game that would normally be treated as an Appearance. I think the issue of whether it's a source or appearance is worth taking to the Senate Hall (if not the Consensus Track) for clarification, at least, in any case. I'll hold off striking this objection just yet until everyone is satisfied. CC7567 (talk) 03:15, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your flexibility; while I do believe the overall source item should be taken into consideration as an Appearance, I think it's fair that we allow CC to respond to this first. Toprawa and Ralltiir
- I'm still more inclined to agree with CC on this one. Appearances are IU stories, while Sources are OOU; and in-game databanks certainly look more OOU to me. That being said, I don't have any real preference on how to call it, nor do I care much. If you want it to be Sources, fine; if you want me to change it back to Appearances, that's OK too. QuiGonJinn
- I'm afraid I kind of disagree with this, after seeing the change made to Darth Desolous's army. We have other instances of non-storyline video game "databank"-like info where we've traditionally just listed the item in the Appearances section since the video game itself in whole is still treated as an Appearance. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:57, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Fixed. QuiGonJinn
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 21:10, May 29, 2011 (UTC)