Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Unidentified female Imperial Knight (II)

< 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 Imperial Knight 2

  • Nominated by: Menkooroo 14:58, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: The wording may look eerily familiar...

(4 ACs/2 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Good job.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:07, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
  2. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 06:32, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:34, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote --Eyrezer 04:26, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:28, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
  6. ACvote—Tommy 9281 19:27, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • Minor thing, but considering the biography quote is technically "about" this ambiguous character, and specifically the only real role/battle she's involved with in canon, I think it would be appropriate to make it the lead quote.
    • You got it.
  • Also, not an objection, but I've pipelinked "Dark Lord of the Sith" into mentions of "Sith Lord" pursuant to Krayt, as I understand this to be correct. Please revise if not. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:00, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think both are correct, but your way is more specific and probably better. Menkooroo 03:58, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Tommy
  • It was brought to my attention with my Darth Vectivus nomination (via IRC) that when referring to unnamed individuals, "this" is unacceptable, given the tense shift when saying "this" person "was." See if you can rework this.—Tommy 9281 20:22, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you sure? "This" jives perfectly well with past tense. There are also a lot of GA precedents that use it (1 2 3 4 5 6, and many more). I could change it to "A female Imperial Knight was...". but that would be misleading, since there were two of them... Menkooroo 03:55, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am sure. I agree that it goes well with the text, and I am also aware of the numerous articles which begin that way. Several well-seasoned Inqs brought the problem with such usage to my attention, and I stand by them in attempting to break what quickly became a trend. You are a clever fellow, Menk, I have no doubts in your ability to make it work without being misleading.—Tommy 9281 15:20, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm OK changing it, but I'm still unsure as to just what the problem is. If it goes well with the text, and the tense shift isn't a problem... what is? Menkooroo 15:43, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
          • No, the tense shift is a problem, despite the fact that it goes well with the text. Sometimes what is easy is not always what is correct.—Tommy 9281 15:49, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
            • Sorry to be so stubborn, but I'm not convinced that a past-tense sentence beginning with "This" is incorrect. Premium-Era-real This article on www.encyclopedia.com (backup link not verified!) on encyclopedia.com uses the sentences "This first outbreak of violence marked the entry of the popular classes into the Revolution", and "this period represented the efforts of a few men to govern the country". Premium-Era-real This one on www.encyclopedia.com (backup link not verified!) states "this limitation was not intended to hinder Security Council measures", and "This willingness was especially evident". I just don't see why this is a problem --- can you explain why you think it is? Menkooroo 16:22, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
              • If I may interject, FWIW, I was unaware of this little grammatical nugget myself, but Dictionary.com evidently supports what Tommy is saying: 1a. Used to refer to the person or thing present, nearby, or just mentioned: This is my cat. These are my tools. And 1c. Used to refer to the present event, action, or time: said he'd be back before this. In other words, it's correctly used for present tense descriptions. But honestly, for our purposes, I think it would be ok to keep with what we've been doing. This is a rather rigid rule that, as Menkooroo has demonstrated, isn't always strictly adhered to. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:20, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
                • The problem with it is that per our manual of style, all in-universe articles are to be in past tense. I agree with Toprawa that for our purposes, we can stick with this for now. But as I said to you previously, Menk, you are a clever fellow, and are more than capable of doing what must be done when it must be done. I would encourage you in the future to steer away from the trend, and do what is right as opposed to what is currently popular if the two happen to differ.—Tommy 9281 19:27, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comments