Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Unidentified Pureblood Sith Master

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Unidentified Pureblood Sith Master

  • Nominated by: JangFett (Talk) 03:19, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: hmm

(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote—Tommy 9281 Monday, July 4, 2011, 15:07 UTC
  2. Butting in since roughly 1,000 years before… –Tm_T (Talk) 15:08, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Your patience is admirable.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 16:17, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
  4. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 21:49, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Kilson(Let's have a chat) 23:17, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Imperators II(Talk) 19:50, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Twin
  • "With his Master injured, Malgus recovered from the Force lightning, took his Master's fallen double-bladed weapon, and engaged the Jedi Master before killing him. After killing the Jedi Master, Malgus walked over to his dying Master. After the two exchanged words, Malgus executed his Sith Master." Very PBP & laden with redundancy.
    • How's that?
  • "As a Sith Master and Inquisitor, the Sith was skilled in the art of lightsaber combat and used a double-bladed lightsaber during his fight with a Zabrak Jedi Master in the Republic's Korriban space station." What does his positions as a Master and Inquisitor have to do with him being skilled in combat with a d-b lightsaber in this particular fight?
    • Addressed.
  • That's all.—Tommy 9281 Monday, July 4, 2011, 04:19 UTC
    • Thanks for the review man, and thanks for taking care of some things when the article was in Inuse mode. :P JangFett (Talk) 14:49, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
  • Woo, TOR! Anyway, I have one prelim before I give it a thorough review: The categories need to be alphabetized. 1358 (Talk) 12:31, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • As "Master" is in the title, shouldn't it be bolded in the intro as well?
  • Shan's species is intro-only info at the moment.
  • It's a bit pbp heavy occasionally—maybe you can take a look and cut out some—but not anything too bad. Looks good otherwise. 1358 (Talk) 21:24, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
  • The way the intro is currently written with: "The Jedi Master incapacitated his Sith counterpart, but Malgus soon killed the Jedi..." makes it seems that Malgus killed both of the Jedi.
    • Well, there's only one Jedi at this point, but nonetheless, I changed it. How's that?
  • How could the Republic and Jedi have controlled Korriban for 1,000 years? They did not control it in 3956 BBY during KOTOR. The Sith controlled it. If this guy was alive in 3681 BBY, something is not right here either the facts are wrong or the developers made a mistake.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 14:42, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
    • Per the trailer, and other than that, you might as well take it up with Bioware. I'm not a huge TOR expert, so you might as well ask Trayus or anyone in WP:TOR to help. Thanks for the review. JangFett (Talk) 14:56, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe the trailer meant roughly 1,000 years, not exactly. It's not uncommon to round the numbers. –Tm_T (Talk) 15:05, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry Tm_T, but I do not think that rounding 275 years to 1000 years would be somethins they would do in-universe.—Unsigned comment by Exiledjedi (talk • contribs)
          • I advice you to take a look at Timeline 6: Onslaught of the Sith Empire. The Fall of Korriban, which the Sith Master is present in, takes place 28 years before the Treaty of Coruscant, which is 3681 BBY. It's not the fault of the article, but rather Bioware that released this. It's stated in the sources and that's what the article goes by like many others. IIRC, the Sith lost Korriban in 5,000 BBY after the Great Hyperspace War. JangFett (Talk) 15:20, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
            • Indeed I looked the numbers totally wrong, my bad. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 15:23, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
              • Well what I thought that the article needed was a behind the scenes note mentioning the discrepancy between the sources.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:27, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
                • Exiled Jedi is correct.—Tommy 9281 Tuesday, July 5, 2011, 15:28 UTC
                  • Personally, unless I'm seeing something wrong, per the Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide, the Sith lost control over Korriban during the Great Hyperspace War. I think there is some confusion over control and just visiting, which, IIRC, is what Revan and Malak do in KOTOR. There is a short mentioning of Revan's revived Sith Empire in Korriban in TEA. The somewhat discrepancy that I see is the years, from 5,000 BBY–3681 BBY, but I'm not entirely sure at that point. It does seem roughly one-thousand years, if that's what "a thousand years," meant to Malgus in Return. BTS note added, however. JangFett (Talk) 15:49, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Imperators II
  • Imho, interpreting Malgus's statement "After a thousand years, Korriban is ours again" to mean that Korriban "had been under Republic and Jedi control" "for one-thousand years" is speculation. Malgus didn't say anything about regaining the planet from the Republic or the Jedi, he just stated that the Sith Empire had once again assumed control of the planet. There is nothing in the trailer that indicates the Republic or the Jedi had any control over the planet for a millennium, therefore such a statement cannot be sourced to Return.
    • You're right, addressed.
      • Ummm... The sentence itself is erroneous (speculative), and simply changing the references doesn't help. Right now it states that the Republic and Jedi had control over the planet from c. 4,681 BBY to 3681 BBY. Considering that Korriban was under Sith control during the Jedi Civil War in 3956 BBY, it's untrue. I'd suggest just removing "for a thousand years". Imperators II(Talk) 17:37, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually, changing the reference did help, since it explained that the Republic had control over it. However, I did remove the 1,000 year bit. JangFett (Talk) 17:39, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think the BTS note about the continuity error is necessary, since I don't believe there is any error. Again, imo the Malgus quote is misinterpreted. As opposed to what is now written in the BTS, he doesn't specifically say the Sith were absent from the planet for a millennium. You're assuming that by "ours" Malgus means the Sith in general. However, if you replace "ours" with "Sith Empire" instead of "Sith", the discrepancy disappears and the quote makes perfect sense, because the original Empire lost control of Korriban in 5000 BBY and the resurgent Empire—which was kind of more like a descendant to the original Empire than Revan's Empire was—regained the control over the planet roughly a thousand years later. Imperators II(Talk) 23:20, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
    • Originally I thought the quote can be misinterpreted, but for the sake of avoiding any other issues relating to the dates, I'll just leave the bts note there. I see no point in removing it, unless Bioware or someone official sourcebook, ect, elaborates more on what occurred in the Return trailer. JangFett (Talk) 00:05, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 04:02, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


  • I like to thank Trayus and Tommy for giving this article a pre-nom review. :) JangFett (Talk) 03:27, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • In reference to the conversations above: Malgus only says "after a thousand years, Korriban is ours again." By "ours" and the time he provided, we can see that he's referring to the Sith Empire (the ancient and the revived version), which, while not exactly one thousand years apart, is the closest approximation. I wouldn't say a BTS note is needed. Its really superfluous, so long as you specify that its the Empires and not the Sith religion that is regaining control in the article. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 04:12, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
    • My thoughts exactly. The BTS note is not only necessary, but misleading, as well. Imperators II(Talk) 08:15, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
      • Necessary or not necessary? From what I read from Trayus' comment, it sounds like I should remove it, but you said the opposite, Imp. :P. However, I'm not entirely sure if I should remove it, per the other discussion above. I just want to avoid any other arguments over this bts note. JangFett (Talk) 14:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry, typo—I meant UNnecessary. Imperators II(Talk) 15:27, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
          • You can go ahead and remove it as far as I am concerned, becuase Trayus cleared up which Sith Empire was regaining control of Korriban. Sorry about the confusion.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:39, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
            • If everyone agrees with this, I'll go ahead and remove it. JangFett (Talk) 15:42, July 6, 2011 (UTC)