- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Mofference
- Nominated by: Menkooroo 07:19, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: I BID YOU ALL DAhhh hell I forgot the rest.
(1 ACs/2 Users/3 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:38, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
"Dark greetings, I bid you all." - Yoda, at the Jediference—Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 13:52, January 17, 2012 (UTC)- —NAYAYEN 17:02, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
A little bit more context for the Prophets of the Dark Side in the intro and the history section please.- Check this out!
- Otherwise, nice work. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:43, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you sir! Menkooroo 20:44, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Jangston
I don't seem to understand why you're sourcing TFN forum posts to the article. Suggesting that Star Wars fans criticized seems to be fine, but searching for obscure places to source it doesn't seem right. Live journal, blogspot, Topless Robot, TFN, ect, feels like blatant fan original research. If an actual Lucasfilm employee (which includes writer) posts something regarding the subject of the article, then I would see it as valid, per our policy, but not actual people posting their personal opinions. What if someone goes to TFN and posts "TCW is shit," and then I take that, write a bts note about it in our TCW article, and source it to TFN? That's actually a part of the issue that I see for this. JangFett (Talk) 17:29, January 15, 2012 (UTC)- What I've always done in the past when making large-scope BTS statements such as "widely criticized" or "seen by many fans as" is find three or four or five different things to source, as just one or two wouldn't do a very good job of backing up that kind of claim. Some examples are here and here. In this case, I've tried to use a variety of different fan sites for each mega-sourced claim; my sources for "perceived as juvenile and criticized by many Star Wars fans" range from the relatively popular Topless Robot site to an entire TFN thread to another forum to a fan blog to an Insider article that explicitly says "many fans find it juvenile." I understand your concern, and the hypothetical TCW example is a good one, but my hope is that using five very different references is giving a wide enough scope to demonstrate that the scorn doesn't simply come from a small group of disgruntled fans. I would never exclusively source the TFN forums (haters gonna hate).
Wookieepedia:Attribution states under its "Original research" section "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources," which is certainly the case here. Granted, it also frowns upon ideas and arguments from unpublished sources, but exceptions have been made in the past if the article says "Many fans think this" and then references a buncha different sites that show fans sharing their thoughts (such as here here and here). If the "seen as juvenile by many fans" statement is the issue here, I guess I could just use the Insider article and call it a day, but I figured that easy-access websites which a reader could click on right away would be good complements. Anyway, am I crazy? Does this make any sense? Menkooroo 20:44, January 15, 2012 (UTC)- After thinking about it, I've removed all of the sourcing from the "fans find it juvenile" statement save for the Insider article, which explicitly says as much and doesn't require any backup. I've kept the source-party for the following statement about the Mofference being a much-mocked-term, though, as I think that appealing to a wide range of fan sites is the best way to get the message across. I have, however, replaced the livejournal one with a blog entry by SW author Adrick Tolliver. I think the BTS is more verifiable and less fanwankish now. Thoughts? Menkooroo 02:49, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Hey there! Sorry I wasn't able to remain on IRC. I prefer hashing things like this out publicly, anyway. So! Let's try to figure out what's best for the article. :) Is it the references that give you unease, or is it the mere inclusion of the "Fans mock the term" statement? The fact that "Mofference" is a widely-mocked term in fandom is very well-known, and precedent seems to indicate that widely-held fan opinions are indeed notable—I feel that not including that point in this article's "Behind the scenes" would be actively disingenuous. If the issue is with the sourcing, however: Do you have an alternative suggestion? Do you think that pointing to Adrick and Pablo would be enough to back up that statement? Let me know. There is precedent for citing fan opinion and sourcing it with several fan sites, so I hope you don't mind if I'd like to get others' opinions, as well. Cheers. Menkooroo 03:20, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
- We discussed this and my case this remains. JangFett (Talk) 16:49, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Our discussion amounted to you repeating "Fan opinion isn't notable" over and over again. If you're not going to respond to any of my points or counterexamples, then this discussion isn't worth having, and I'll request that your objection be struck. Menkooroo 20:56, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Menk, I did not ask you to repeat or exaggerate my pm comments from IRC. Until you actually find why fan opinion is worth mentioning in one of our articles, I'm going to stand firm on this. Precedent dated back to 2007-2008 isn't going to change my mind. We can talk more about this on IRC some other day, but not today since I'll be away. JangFett (Talk) 11:26, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
- The majority of the precedents I linked to are from 2011. Your opinion is not absolute, and you are not excused from participating in discussion. I'm disappointed in you, Jang. I've asked you for clarification, I've proposed a compromise, and I've offered perfectly valid counterexamples to your argument. If you refuse to discuss this, then your objection is groundless. Menkooroo 14:44, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, regarding "why fan opinion is worth mentioning in one of our articles", I see it as no different to a reception section in an article on a novel or other OOU source. I believe it is relevant in our Bts sections how fans reacted to a character/event/ship/whatever, providing it can be sourced of course which it has been here and the sources reflect that it is a widely held reaction. Cheers, grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 17:24, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
- OK! Jang, I want to take this time to apologize for my stubborn and, frankly, rude behaviour. I've now taken some time to cool down and seek the advice of others. Sorry I haven't been on IRC lately; I was visiting my parents in a place with atrociously slow internet, but considering how heated I was, that's probably a good thing. Anyway, after some discussion with Tope, I've made an edit to the BTS that I feel lends quite a bit of legitimacy and credibility to the statement currently under dispute. Let me know what you think of it. I'm not quite as confident about the following Legacy-Mofference statement; if you feel that it should be killed, let me know and it'll be gone in a second. Sorry again for my behaviour, and hopefully we can resolve this without any lasting hard feelings. Menkooroo 23:44, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
- All right, but I have looked at the article, and I can tell you that it has improved since the last time I saw the bts. What concerned me was the fact that you were going to random forums to find fan opinions. Even though I still don't seem to understand the use of fan opinion in our articles, I looked at what's present in the article now and I don't mind the use of notable forums, such as TFN and Dark Horse. This "Little Miss Krahka" thing was just not notable compared to TFN and Dark Horse. The edit you pointed out—"by fans and Star Wars authors alike"—is a good addition and it makes the fan opinion/author opinions flow better. I'll go ahead and strike this objection and look at the article again some other time. We can talk more if you want on IRC sometime. JangFett (Talk) 01:04, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. I actually largely agree with you; some of the sites I was citing were pretty eyebrow-raising in terms of notability. Sorry again for being a dink, and I'm looking forward to the rest of your review! Menkooroo 01:20, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
- All right, but I have looked at the article, and I can tell you that it has improved since the last time I saw the bts. What concerned me was the fact that you were going to random forums to find fan opinions. Even though I still don't seem to understand the use of fan opinion in our articles, I looked at what's present in the article now and I don't mind the use of notable forums, such as TFN and Dark Horse. This "Little Miss Krahka" thing was just not notable compared to TFN and Dark Horse. The edit you pointed out—"by fans and Star Wars authors alike"—is a good addition and it makes the fan opinion/author opinions flow better. I'll go ahead and strike this objection and look at the article again some other time. We can talk more if you want on IRC sometime. JangFett (Talk) 01:04, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
- OK! Jang, I want to take this time to apologize for my stubborn and, frankly, rude behaviour. I've now taken some time to cool down and seek the advice of others. Sorry I haven't been on IRC lately; I was visiting my parents in a place with atrociously slow internet, but considering how heated I was, that's probably a good thing. Anyway, after some discussion with Tope, I've made an edit to the BTS that I feel lends quite a bit of legitimacy and credibility to the statement currently under dispute. Let me know what you think of it. I'm not quite as confident about the following Legacy-Mofference statement; if you feel that it should be killed, let me know and it'll be gone in a second. Sorry again for my behaviour, and hopefully we can resolve this without any lasting hard feelings. Menkooroo 23:44, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, regarding "why fan opinion is worth mentioning in one of our articles", I see it as no different to a reception section in an article on a novel or other OOU source. I believe it is relevant in our Bts sections how fans reacted to a character/event/ship/whatever, providing it can be sourced of course which it has been here and the sources reflect that it is a widely held reaction. Cheers, grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 17:24, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
- The majority of the precedents I linked to are from 2011. Your opinion is not absolute, and you are not excused from participating in discussion. I'm disappointed in you, Jang. I've asked you for clarification, I've proposed a compromise, and I've offered perfectly valid counterexamples to your argument. If you refuse to discuss this, then your objection is groundless. Menkooroo 14:44, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
- Menk, I did not ask you to repeat or exaggerate my pm comments from IRC. Until you actually find why fan opinion is worth mentioning in one of our articles, I'm going to stand firm on this. Precedent dated back to 2007-2008 isn't going to change my mind. We can talk more about this on IRC some other day, but not today since I'll be away. JangFett (Talk) 11:26, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
- Our discussion amounted to you repeating "Fan opinion isn't notable" over and over again. If you're not going to respond to any of my points or counterexamples, then this discussion isn't worth having, and I'll request that your objection be struck. Menkooroo 20:56, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
- We discussed this and my case this remains. JangFett (Talk) 16:49, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Hey there! Sorry I wasn't able to remain on IRC. I prefer hashing things like this out publicly, anyway. So! Let's try to figure out what's best for the article. :) Is it the references that give you unease, or is it the mere inclusion of the "Fans mock the term" statement? The fact that "Mofference" is a widely-mocked term in fandom is very well-known, and precedent seems to indicate that widely-held fan opinions are indeed notable—I feel that not including that point in this article's "Behind the scenes" would be actively disingenuous. If the issue is with the sourcing, however: Do you have an alternative suggestion? Do you think that pointing to Adrick and Pablo would be enough to back up that statement? Let me know. There is precedent for citing fan opinion and sourcing it with several fan sites, so I hope you don't mind if I'd like to get others' opinions, as well. Cheers. Menkooroo 03:20, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
- After thinking about it, I've removed all of the sourcing from the "fans find it juvenile" statement save for the Insider article, which explicitly says as much and doesn't require any backup. I've kept the source-party for the following statement about the Mofference being a much-mocked-term, though, as I think that appealing to a wide range of fan sites is the best way to get the message across. I have, however, replaced the livejournal one with a blog entry by SW author Adrick Tolliver. I think the BTS is more verifiable and less fanwankish now. Thoughts? Menkooroo 02:49, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
- What I've always done in the past when making large-scope BTS statements such as "widely criticized" or "seen by many fans as" is find three or four or five different things to source, as just one or two wouldn't do a very good job of backing up that kind of claim. Some examples are here and here. In this case, I've tried to use a variety of different fan sites for each mega-sourced claim; my sources for "perceived as juvenile and criticized by many Star Wars fans" range from the relatively popular Topless Robot site to an entire TFN thread to another forum to a fan blog to an Insider article that explicitly says "many fans find it juvenile." I understand your concern, and the hypothetical TCW example is a good one, but my hope is that using five very different references is giving a wide enough scope to demonstrate that the scorn doesn't simply come from a small group of disgruntled fans. I would never exclusively source the TFN forums (haters gonna hate).
Return of the Jedi
You categorize the article as Category:Events, so could you not use {{Event}}? There seem to be several fields that could be filled in for this article.- Nice find. Added and sourced.
- Nice article, otherwise. I was hoping someone would do this article. :P —Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 04:50, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm surprised as hell nobody has before now. Menkooroo 05:00, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Think "space vehicle" is a strange term? Apparently Paul and Hollace Davids didn't. OS wording represent! Menkooroo 07:19, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
To the Agricorps: I'd like to formally request that Jang's objection be struck. I'm completely open to discussing how to improve the article's "Behind the scenes" section, but in order to do so, I'll need an interlocutor who is equally as open. I've offered Jang a compromise and asked him for clarification but have received no response to either appeal. I've offered valid reasons as to why I disagree with him, but he's standing firm and refusing to budge from his position. The article will not benefit from this approach, and I believe that this kind of refusal to consider another's position or to engage in any sort of discussion renders one's objections moot. Thank you for your consideration. Menkooroo 15:32, January 21, 2012 (UTC)- I'm going to strike this for now, as I've had some time to cool down and decide that getting others' opinions is a better course of action than simply exacerbating the issue. There are better ways to resolve this than being brash and stubborn, and I apologize. Menkooroo 22:44, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
- Nomination removed per nominator's request. JangFett (Talk) 23:23, February 28, 2012 (UTC)