- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Unidentified Imperial controller (Avenger)
- Nominated by: Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 01:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: 101st quality article nomination.
(2 ACs/2 Users/4 Total)
Support
- 501st dogma(talk) 17:00, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
IFYLOFD (Talk) 04:47, March 4, 2015 (UTC)- Manoof (talk) 03:42, April 3, 2015 (UTC)
- Winterz (talk) 17:22, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
Object
Manoof
Should Imperial Navy, Death Squadron and maybe even the Avenger be in the affiliation attribute? Manoof (talk) 04:01, April 1, 2015 (UTC)- Subaffiliations are not needed, they are optional. And no, Avenger should never be listed as a formal subaffiliation.
- I still think it is important to have the navy and death squadron in the affiliation, but that's ok I guess. Manoof (talk) 04:14, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
I understand if you're not really into subaffilitations but considering that infoboxes serve to brief and quickly summarize the subject well, that affiliation alone doesn't really sum up things properly does it? After all, the Galactic Empire is a huge thing, so I'd like to push for some sub-affiliation there too. One or two, it doesn't really matter as long as it clarifies that he's in the Empire's military.Winterz (talk) 03:03, April 19, 2015 (UTC)- Done. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 15:50, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Subaffiliations are not needed, they are optional. And no, Avenger should never be listed as a formal subaffiliation.
Does the novel specify the Avenger as an Impstar deuce and the transports as GR-75s? Just asking as ref 4 uses X-Wing Alliance to confirm Avenger as a deuce. Manoof (talk) 04:01, April 1, 2015 (UTC)- Those sorts of things don't need extra referencing, and it is common practice to not do so. See as an example my not doing extra sourcing for the Executor being an Executor-class Star Dreadnought in my Hurdiss article, though neither ESB nor the Hurdiss CCG card specify it as such. And if you read ref 4, it is only used to state the Tyrant's class in a duck test case scenario, given no formal Legends confirmation of its class. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 15:35, April 1, 2015 (UTC)
- I would still like to see them referenced, if I read the book and saw the movie, I still wouldn't know what an Impstar deuce or GR-75 is. It should be referenced so when I come on here and see it is an impstar deuce, I know where I can go to find more because of that reference. Manoof (talk) 04:14, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in here, but I was the one who asked Manoof to reference similar information in his articles. While I believe that there is some gray area on what can be duck-tested, I think that both of these should have additional sourcing due to their visual similarity to the Imperial I-class Star Destroyer and the GR-45 medium transport. In general, I would argue that it is always better to reference names to sources that mention them, except for more generic item names (i.e. Star Destroyer, Stormtrooper armor, Blaster rifle) and species. We should be striving for accuracy, and referencing information to sources that do not mention that information seems flawed to me. Lax referencing leaves the door open for fanon names and other inaccuracies.--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 04:18, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, referenced both, despite my not fully thinking it's necessary. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:32, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Hanzo, is this the same situation with the millennium falcon being a yt-1300? Manoof (talk) 00:17, April 3, 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 01:12, April 3, 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Hanzo, is this the same situation with the millennium falcon being a yt-1300? Manoof (talk) 00:17, April 3, 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, referenced both, despite my not fully thinking it's necessary. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:32, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in here, but I was the one who asked Manoof to reference similar information in his articles. While I believe that there is some gray area on what can be duck-tested, I think that both of these should have additional sourcing due to their visual similarity to the Imperial I-class Star Destroyer and the GR-45 medium transport. In general, I would argue that it is always better to reference names to sources that mention them, except for more generic item names (i.e. Star Destroyer, Stormtrooper armor, Blaster rifle) and species. We should be striving for accuracy, and referencing information to sources that do not mention that information seems flawed to me. Lax referencing leaves the door open for fanon names and other inaccuracies.--Exiled Jedi
- I would still like to see them referenced, if I read the book and saw the movie, I still wouldn't know what an Impstar deuce or GR-75 is. It should be referenced so when I come on here and see it is an impstar deuce, I know where I can go to find more because of that reference. Manoof (talk) 04:14, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Those sorts of things don't need extra referencing, and it is common practice to not do so. See as an example my not doing extra sourcing for the Executor being an Executor-class Star Dreadnought in my Hurdiss article, though neither ESB nor the Hurdiss CCG card specify it as such. And if you read ref 4, it is only used to state the Tyrant's class in a duck test case scenario, given no formal Legends confirmation of its class. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 15:35, April 1, 2015 (UTC)
Comments
- For WP:AMB. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 01:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
- As a novel-exclusive character, this article is also for Project Novels. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:30, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering, why this isn't merged with Cabbal's article? Does Cabbal appear in the novel in a different capacity? I would have thought that, since the scene is so similar, even though he isn't named as Cabbal in the novel we can still identify him as such from the scene, kind of how we visually identify appearances, even if the name isn't given. Manoof (talk) 22:55, March 30, 2015 (UTC)