This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —MJ—Training Room 18:41, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
For the past three days, I have been plowing my way through Category:Battles of the Galactic Civil War and all its various subcategories, and through that I have developed what I believe is a relatively cohesive timeline for almost all of the battles of the Galactic Civil War. While I have not yet uploaded the timeline from the Word doc I created it on (I will soon), my research's main goal was accomplished.
It's complete. It's ginormous. It's glorious (in my opinion). And it's one hell of a long read. So, enjoy!
Okay, some actual notes on this template.
It will only be used on the Galactic Civil War article itself. I will be creating component templates, breaking the big template apart at the blue heading bars, and using each specific section of the war's template for the battles within that section.
It is almost entirely in chronological order, barring a few mishaps and the occasional parallel/simultaneous battles of strings of battles. The GCW is one of the most complicated and time-twisted eras in Star Wars history, other than TCW, and there are bound to be contradictions and errors.
Also, several battles had no information on what battles preceded or followed them, so I used my best judgement and as much information as possible to place them in the timeline.
While I pride myself on my accuracy and hopefully on the veracity of this template, I'd love to hear anything you guys have to say about it: comments, criticisms, suggestions, etc. CadeCalrayn 06:40, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Comments, Questions, Suggestions, Criticism, and Why the Hell Did You Do This?Edit
An intriguing and impressive effort! I suspect that of the battles that have not been placed, many will be able to be slotted into one of the time bands (-2 to 0 BBY, 0 BBY to 0 ABY, etc). I therefore suggest that you add within each time band a place for unplaced battles within the period. That way the dates will be more accurate even if we cannot give an exact date. Oh and by the way, the Battle of Mantooine had occurred after the signing of the Corellian Treaty and before the end of 2 BBY. I also suspect there a number of battles that will be missing, but we can feed them in. Did you include missions? --Eyrezer 08:47, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Everything. All missions, skirmishes, duels, side conflicts, operations, blah blah blah. 15:30, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Even more impressive. Now, what about my substantive suggestion of splitting the unidentified placement and slotting it into your broad categories? I am happy to give more examples of this to support my suggestion if that would be useful. --Eyrezer 20:34, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Tomorrow morning, it shall be done. If I don't go see Madagascar 3 for free... there be perks of working at Cinemark. CadeCalrayn 04:22, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Through extensive "cheating", I have split them up and inserted the new rows. Basically, anything that says Rebel Alliance or Alliance of Free Planets can be lumped into the 2 BBY-4 ABY timeslot, since the Alliance is reformed into the New Republic after Endor. And some of them actually have soft dates, so I moved them accordingly. The only battles left in the bottom section are ones that have absolutely no clues, so we're good. CadeCalrayn 17:51, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Rogue Squadron now has the honor of its own row. CadeCalrayn 15:26, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Sheesh, all this criticism! ;) Great work, Cade. Looks terrific. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 13:55, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
A little note in the Operation Skyhook section; I'd fix it myself but I don't want to interfere with anything you're doing. You've got "First Despayre" for the Battle of, followed by the "Destruction of Despayre" for that, and then "Third Despayre", which links to the second battle of Despayre article. May want to fix that, seeing as the destruction wasn't a conflict and the event that the "Third" text is linking to is explicitly the Second. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 04:38, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Done. The other "Destruction"s, like Carida and the ones during Shadow Hand, however, are all battles - it wasn't just planets exploding. There was fighting too! :) CadeCalrayn 17:51, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Non-judgemental spot to note omissions for addition?Edit
The Empire Reborn campaign and the Waru Crisis are one and the same. I recommend renaming the "Waru Campaign" as "Empire Reborn campaign (cont.)" to show the continuity of these two series of events. --Eyrezer 10:15, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with adding the Second Imperium Campaign, as it's not part of the Galactic Civil War. The Second Imperium is akin to Separatist Holdouts, and Imperial campaigns against Separatist Holdouts wouldn't be considered part of the Clone Wars. Black Fleet Crisis might qualify, as the Yevetha waged war after seizing control of Imperial ships and ship yards. Not sure. Menkooroo 16:31, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
True, the Second Imperium is after the peace treaty. --Eyrezer 20:41, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
Battle of the Destination: Adventure! seems to be misplaced -- judging by the description, it's Imperials fighting pirates on behalf of Black Sun, and nothing to do directly with the GCW. Should there be links to battles that happened to take place during the GCW? —Silly Dan(talk) 03:31, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, is the Almanian Uprising actually part of the Galactic Civil War? I don't think Keuller was part of an Imperial faction. For that matter, I am not sure that the Black Fleet Crisis should necessarily qualify either. --Eyrezer 11:35, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Silent Blades is in Category:Battles of the Galactic Civil War, as is the Hungry Ghost. While it's not actually the Empire v. the Republic, but they're proxy battles involving one or more sides, and those are typically considered parts of the greater wars. Look at the Clone Wars—there's plenty of conflicts that don't directly involve both parties. The whole Zann Consortium conflict, too. Basically, my point is that the Galactic Civil War involves more than just the Alliance/New Republic and the Empire, it also has third parties. Look at the Great Galactic War.
I see your point. Maybe battles which only involve the Alliance/Republic or the Empire should be somehow set off from the rest of the war? —Silly Dan(talk) 13:06, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think that'd be a good idea. It would destroy the chronolgical aspect of the template, and I'm rather loathe to add more rows. —Unsigned comment byCade Calrayn (talk • contribs).
If you want an easy way to distinguish battles that aren't Empire vs. Alliance or Empire vs. Republic, simply un-bold those battles and put a short note at the bottom of the template specifying that bold vs. regular text means (bold being conflicts involving both main factions and regular involving only one). That note could be templatized as well so it could easily be added to the applicable component templates (the ones intended for use in other articles) as well. —MJ—Council ChambersWednesday, June 20, 2012, 02:18 UTC
Hmm.... to do so, someone would need to disable the bolding in the main template (which I cannot find), and edit the bolding in the subtemplates... bah. I'll get to it... soon... CadeCalrayn 02:23, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
Would italicizing those battles be easier? (Could the Battle of Tanaab, which technically involved neither Rebellion nor Empire, be treated that same way?) —Silly Dan(talk) 02:26, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
No, because the italics are for ship battles. CadeCalrayn 02:32, June 20, 2012 (UTC)