Wookieepedia:Inq/Palpatine

< Wookieepedia:Inq
Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Palpatine

Palpatine

  • Status: Former featured Article (other options are "featured article", "former featured article", and "article")

Things to do

  • Needs sourcing
  • Remove conclusions.
  • Florid prose and analysis needs removal.
  • Some BTS bits need condensing.
  • Too many rhetorical questions
  • "It's an encyclopedia article, not a scholarly essay."-Havac
  • Very little (i.e. none) information on Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of FA status

  • FA status removed per IRC meeting.

Keep

Remove

Comments

  • What the hell? What the f*** are you doing? This is outrageous! KEJ 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm up waaay too late, so I'll just point you to the meeting log for the reasons. Bottom of the first page/top of the second. - Lord Hydronium 14:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Reason should be given here out of user-friendliness, I think. KEJ 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I know, but we just got this thing going, like, today. Hopefully somebody will be along while I'm sleeping and add comments to the ones that don't have any; if not, I'll add them in later. - Lord Hydronium 14:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Hey, that link to the meeting log just directs you to an image file, not to any reasons for the Palpatine article to lose its FA status. Someone might want to correct that before the mobs start gathering with torches and pitchforks.... Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 03:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
            • The image file is a PDF. .... 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Forget my last few comments. It has tons of sources already. What it's our longest and most comprehensive article. What more do you want? Rodtheanimegod4ever 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It has no sourcing. Under our new rules, all canon facts need to be referenced with the source they came from. - Lord Hydronium 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, wouldn't { { SIP } } be more appropriate? Rodtheanimegod4ever 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope. Because it's on probation, and the sourcing is not in progress. .... 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There, I called on people to start sourcing and killed that horrid "Conclusions" section personally. Can we get rid of that template now? That thing has got to scare some children.... Rodtheanimegod4ever 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. Hey, look, a Four Dot Elipsis! Rodtheanimegod4ever 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Template will be removed when article is sourced. And yes, they do pop up from time to time. .... 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So, why haven't you begun sourcing it, 4Dot? -- SFH 05:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Because I did not write it. .... 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So, do you want this to be de-featured? Rodtheanimegod4ever 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah. Because it's not up to scratch. .... 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Then bring it "up to scratch". You're a contributor to this Wiki too. Articles don't belong to any specific editor or editors, so if you think an article isn't up to the level it should be, nobody will be upset if you fix it yourself. Red XIV 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Look, we need to talk. I've been reducing the article all night, and I'm sure I'll be doing it well into the weekend. Rhetorical questions? Gone. Too many quotes? Gone. Overly fluffy passages? As much as humanly possible, gone. But if people think it's still just a play-by-play account, regardless of what I do, may I remind you that every character article tries to tell people what the character did in his/her/its life. I've been trying to make it fit your standards, but I won't apologize for being richly detailed, and I won't reduce this article to a skeleton. Show me the rule that says it can't be play-by-play, if that's what you choose to reduce my approach to (and don't make one up right now just to stump me). Tell me why we have to be just like every other site that contents itself with bare-bones information, when I don't see anything in the Manual of Style that insists upon it.

If there is no such standing regulation, then many of these criticisms are all just issues of personal preference, aren't they? And if that's true, there'll never be an end to this, even if I gave you everything you wanted. We had multiple votes on this and we're still doing this runaround. This has to stop, permanently. It can't go on like this; at some point you're going to have to bend for me to make me happy, as much as I've been bending for you to make you happy. I'm trying to follow everything you've listed above, but beyond that, what more do you want? Stop saying "it can be detailed, just not so much," because that doesn't tell me what you want. Tell me specifically what the dividing line is between "good" and "not good," or else just decide that I've done enough and you can live with it. Decide.

And one more thing: the sourcing issue. I think it's a great idea, it's an excellent way to resolve questions of where a given fact came from, especially when multiple facts from separate sources are all in one paragraph. Whoever came up with it gets my unreserved kudos. As complex as it has to be by its very nature, this article - and the entire Wiki - will definitely benefit from sourcing, and as some have guessed, I would be happy to do it. But if you want the article sourced, and especially if you want me to do it, you'd best refer me to a place where I can learn how to do it. This change is so recent to me that I haven't picked up on it. So if you want me to do my part, you need to help me. Do that, and I assure you I'll do the rest.

Do I sound angry? Yes, I probably do. I'm sorry, you all really deserve nicer behavior from me. But if you're sick of this issue, so am I. Can we finally decide what you'll be satisfied with and just end this? And dare I hope that there's room in your level of satisfaction for the hard work I've put into this? You must concede that I have tried to make you happy, and that I'm still trying, and if there's such a thing as fairness, you need to be prepared to concede an issue or two yourselves. If all you want is just the basics or else nothing at all, you're not trying to make this Wiki the best and most complete source for Star Wars information, and in that case I would probably want no part of it. It would just be a clone of every other limited-info databank. Make this Wiki worth my time and effort, or else what's the point? Erik Pflueger Republic Emblem 08:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The issue is that Encyclopedias do not provide "and then he did this, and this, and this", they just give you "This happened". And with the sourcing, it may look hard, but it's quite easy, esp. if you are the one who wrote the article. I'll use my own example of what is my personal best sourced work: Armand Isard. Just look at the code for that and adapt it. Easy as pie. .... 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think we said that it shouldn't be a play by play. It's not mentioned as one of the reasons that it's being considered for de-featuring. Please understand that you are entirely correct about adding as much information as we possibly can on characters and their exploits, and the detail you've added? Amazing, astounding, all-around great, but I think that the quote at the end of "things to be done" fits the article perfectly (or used to fit now that you've begun cleaning). This needs to at least "read" as though you're not just doing an extended commentary on Palpatine's life. Take my word for it, I like the play-by-play stuff, but only if it's going to be backed up by rich prose and interesting detail—which you have painstakingly done. I'm sorry that we dumped this whole "sourcing" thing on you as well, but believe me with this article sourced any detractors will have nothing to say. Cull Tremayne 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, Cull (not to be confused with Kull, one of Kevin Sorbo's lesser roles - not that he had greater ones...), the play-by-play issue was brought up in the original discussions of the Inquisitorious, which I read. If you'd like the prose and detail to stay - and I must point out that it seems not everyone does, or else why should Havac putwhat he put into the list above? - that's fine, and I'll find a happy medium myself. But that means that once I did so, you'd have to say you're satisfied at last, wouldn't you? I'm assuming that if it's all sourced, as you said, it'll be more bulletproof, so I've started that task. Be warned, though, that like the article itself, the references list will probably be longer and more complex by far than others in other articles - to make sure there's no mistakes, I'm even adding the page number of each reference. Lord knows I'd have loved it if others had done the same for me years ago, when I began researching all this. Tell me if this is overkill, but somehow I think the more specific it is, the more you'll be pleased. Erik Pflueger Republic Emblem 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I knew you were most likely referring to that, though you could probably see that not everyone brought up that point. I don't want all the prose removed, just for there to be less extraneous use of it. I think Havac has a point. Most of the prose is so flowery it becomes almost a continuous exulting essay rather than telling us what we know happened. Of course, we will have to say that we're "satisfied", and I know that makes no sense on a "wiki" of all places. We're not trying to say that the article will be "complete at last" by doing this, we're trying to have our FAs represent the purpose of this site which is to be an exhaustive catalog of everything in Star Wars, not the place for analysis of characters and delightful essays which extrapolate motives and thought processes. Cull Tremayne 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh, and yes, the more specific the better really. Cull Tremayne 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I must point out, Cull, that there are quite a few sources that do extrapolate and/or describe his motives and thought processes. Take the Revenge of the Sith young adult novelization, or the Dark Empire Sourcebook, or the New Essential Chronology, just to name three examples. They are specific about his thoughts and motives, and if published, are they not canon and due for inclusion? And if there are cases where certain extrapolations and connections are obvious to the researchers, and any child could reach them, shouldn't they be included?

As far as flowery prose and play-by-play is concerned, if you really want what I think is the best example of my using it correctly, check out the section related to events from Episode I. Note that it's all based on canon sources and can be referenced - none of it's made up - and it only concerns things from the film relevant to Palpatine, with the merest recounting of other semi-relevant events to give context to the narrative. Once I trim away the fat and make it detailed and descriptive without being so intricate that readers trip over it - and I've been doing that since yesterday - I think that's the level of detail I'd want from the article, and eventually I would try to make that level universal throughout the article. The question is, does my standard of quality sufficiently overlap with yours, or those of the rest of the Inquisitorius? Erik Pflueger Republic Emblem 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The Phantom Menace section is satisfactory to me. I like it. If the whole article was written that way, I think many of the "flowery prose" critics would finally shut up. Oh, and I'll help with some of the sourcing as well. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 16:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Speaking of scaring small children, do we really need page numbers for the references? With an article that size, aren't we likely to end up with an unreasonably long list of footnotes if we don't condense several references into one line? —Silly Dan (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I anticipated - and even joked - that some might see that as overkill, Dan. I even warned that the list of footnotes would be long and complex, just as the article is. Cull Tremayne indicated to me that that was fine, so I ran with it. All I can say is that this is the level of detail I'd want and expect in footnotes to any Star Wars article I was researching from. I hate having to look through an entire book to find the reference; why not have the page numbers to make it easy for people who want to make sure my work's kosher? The precedent I'm using can be found in the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook, where the chapter footnotes have book name, page number, and a small blurb describing what info they used from it. And always, at their end, just like at the end of my footnotes, is the implication: "You can go look it up if you don't take my word for it." And isn't that the point? Erik Pflueger Republic Emblem 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • This is true: page numbers do help with verification. However, in a collaborative article, we can't count on everyone having the same version of a given book: if you make a footnote with "The Truce at Bakura, pp. 12-15" while working from your first printing hardcover, and I add more information from p. 134 of the second printing paperback, the footnotes will look a bit odd (and won't be helpful for the reader who comes along with the Spanish translation anyway.) Similarly, if you reference a short story on Hyperspace, what "page number" do you use, and how does it help me find that exact reference in the Star Wars Adventure Journal issue it was originally printed in? Perhaps the main reason I've always objected to this, though, is that the equivalent to page numbers in the films would be time codes, which would be complete overkill. Maybe we should ask for chapters instead, but I'm inclined to leave it at referencing whole works, with more expansive footnotes reserved for contentious or confusing points. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And as far as the small children are concerned, Dan, I still maintain that the intended audience for my work is the well-read adult or young adult. The length of the list ought to be reasonable to them; if you're a small child, should you even be here? There's always the Databank for children who can't take anything more than a synopsis, anyway. Erik Pflueger Republic Emblem 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • That was a joke. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Sorry, Dan, but sometimes, it's hard to pick humor out when I don't hear the audio delivery, when it's just typed, unless it's obvious. A lot of us are known for dry humor here, sometimes so dry that it looks serious when it isn't. :) Erik Pflueger Republic Emblem 02:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As for my issues, my statement that it should not be a scholarly essay is a reference to what seems to be excessive analysis (as exemplified in the Conclusions section), which doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. It's written less like a biographical NPOV entry, and more like an essay on Palpatine's life -- more similar to the moralizing biographies and histories of Rome than an encyclopedic standard. I don't have a problem with heavy detail, though I'm of the opinion that if you can do in one paragraph what is currently being done it two without losing the essential facts, better to simplify. Those are my issues; no more, no less.
However, I'll also note that the Inquisitorius would be inclined to approve its retaining its status so long as sourcing and general de-flowerization are clearly in progress, so don't feel that you're being saddled with a total rewrite ASAP.
And in one final note, it is, as far as I know, currently policy that references are to include the work -- no more, no less. Frankly, there is no way to standardize page references across multiple printings and versions, and to try to put them in place would only be counterproductive. As much as you may wish to go above and beyond, I urge you to stick strictly with the policy that's currently in place. I can assure you that someone will come along at some point and remove any page references under the aegis of policy, and I don't think there would be a satisfactory response for your side unless policy was actually overhauled.
If you're not aware of current sourcing policy, check out Brenn Tantor. That code in the headers should be used for all sections which contain information all from one source. In the case of those using multiple sources, use the code found in the intro. And note the different coding used for the first reference to a source and all subsequent references. Havac 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize that there are sources for his motives and thoughts. What I was referring to was information such as, like Havac mentioned, a conclusions section and several hypothetical questions that don't seem to have a basis in canon. That's why I think that sourcing will turn away all detractors. If I see one section that is blatant personal analysis (for instance a conclusion section) then I'm going to extrapolate that all the rest of the information discussing his motives is personal analysis as well. I didn't say that I didn't want information on his motives and thoughts included, just that any information on Palpatine's feelings on a matter be duly sourced and documented. The thing with page numbers, if I was reading the policy right, was that we don't need them, but if someone wants to go to that level of detail, then more power to them. It was just my own personal opinion that "more specific the better", which I think it is. Since this is the English Star Wars wiki, the room for different versions is not going to be huge (disregarding Hyperspace fiction which of course throws it off a bit), and you can always cite from what version you got the information. Finally, I'm not trying to tell you that your style is different from mine or the Inquisitorius as a whole and therefore must be changed. I only thought that some of the style was counterproductive to a encyclopedic article. Like I've said, once this is sourced, it will turn away all of your detractors—including myself (though I never was a very big detractor anyway). Cull Tremayne 11:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, the current rules state that links in the notes & references section aren't necessary. If you think that rule is bad, please say so on the appropriate CT thread...—Silly Dan (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Nothing says that they can't be added though right? Cull Tremayne 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Wookieepedia:Sourcing says "Do not add links to references, unless the source is not linked to elsewhere in the article," but the rule is lsted as "undecided." —Silly Dan (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry to butt in, just wanted to check the progress. We have lots of sources, and the artsy fartsy prose is gone. Is it up to scratch yet? Rodtheanimegod4ever 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not cited yet. .... 23:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
            • It has tons of citations. I've seen Wikipedia FAs with less sourcing. I, personally think that this was a good concept, but that the rules are too tight. We may someday end up at a point where nothing can be featured. And like I said before, all the prancey prose is gone. I don't want to be a nuisance, though. After all, I am not an Inquisitor (though I do love the Monty Pythos Spanish Iquisition Sketch, if that counts for anything around here). Rodtheanimegod4ever 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
              • A) We are not Wikipedia, B) Those must have been pretty rubbishy articles, and C) The article is not fully cited, so tough. .... 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
                • We must have pretty different definitions of "rubbish" then. I'm almost beginning to think you LIKE de-featuring articles. Rodtheanimegod4ever 23:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me remind everyone that we still have all week to source the article. And that it's the group vote of Inquisitors this Saturday/Sunday that matters. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 17:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Not that I really want to get involved, but since this is such a huge article, and so essential for the site (*and* a lot of great work has already been done), it seems to me that an Improvement Drive may be in order. Sourcing it completely (or as completely as is humanly possible) is a many-person task. I for one will certainly add some REF tags where I can, but to speed the process, I hope someone nominates Palpatine for the ID. I would, but as I said, I don't want to get involved in the debate :) —Gonk (Gonk!) 14:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)