Wikia

Wookieepedia

Random Page Wiki Activity
Watchlist Recent changes

Forum:SH:The Super-Terrific Wookiee-Tastic Year-Article Sourcing Beautification Project

Forums > Senate Hall > SH:The Super-Terrific Wookiee-Tastic Year-Article Sourcing Beautification Project

From the makers of The Super-Terrific Wookiee-Tastic Image Sourcing Beautification Project...Wookieepedia brings you a new spectacular program designed to shore up the wiki's mainspace from lacking date articles. This is The Super-Terrific Wookiee-Tastic YEAR-ARTICLE Sourcing Beautification Project!

Contents

What is this about this time?Edit

Wookieepedia's goal has always been to provide readers with reliable Star Wars data from fully licensed sources. To that end, it has long been Wookieepedia's singular core policy to require that each in-universe article created be fully attributed and sourced by including a list of Appearances or Sources to verify its validity. For articles failing to meet this requirement, it has traditionally been this wiki's practice to note unverified articles with the Verify template, and articles that are not verified after seven days' time are then deleted by an administrator with no show of mercy. None of this should be news to any of you.

Yet, for some reason, hundreds of date articles sit in the mainspace unverified, unsourced, or with no information at all.

What can be done?Edit

As with any unverified article, we have two possible choices: we can either source them, or an administrator can delete them. There is no reason or loophole in site policy that justifies the continued existence of any unsourced in-universe article on Wookieepedia past the aforementioned one-week grace period.

So what's going to happen?Edit

We're either going to source these year articles, or, for those that aren't sourced, we're going to delete them as unverified, per site policy and protocol. You read that right. Delete them. Every single one.

But I'm scaredEdit

I am too, Johnny. This is a big deal. But this is where this project comes in.

Listed below is a collection of every single year article that does not have an Appearance or Source. The collection is divided into two lists. The first is for articles that literally have no source or reference to speak of. The second is for articles that have a "Notes and reference" section only, and are therefore marginally sourced, but are still technically unverified. Under normal circumstances these articles would still have the "Verify" tag applied to them and would still be deleted as unverified.

There are currently 242 articles with no source or reference at all, and 117 articles with "Notes and referencing" only (give or take a few for counting/compiling mistakes). The lists are divided into chronological eras for convenience and navigation. That's the bad news. The good news is that these articles can still be saved...with your help!

Ideally, we wouldn't have to delete a single article. Each one can theoretically be saved from deletion by adding an Appearance or Source. But with such a large number of articles, no one alone can be expected to undertake such a massive project. Luckily, we have an entire community of editors. And that's where you come in. Anyone can chip in by helping to source any of the articles listed below.

So how is this going to work?Edit

For the first set of 242 articles, you may from this point forward consider them to be on "Verify" probation. For any article that isn't eventually sourced, it's going to be deleted. But not right away. Normally we would give them that one-week grace period we talked about. But since this is such a large undertaking, these articles are going to be given two weeks. Since not everyone is going to find this project thread right away, a bot is going to add the "Verify" template to every single applicable article of the first 242 one week from now, on Friday, November 26. After the second week, on Friday, December 3, any unsourced article in the first set of 242 will be deleted.

For the second set of 117, this is a bit more tricky, since, as noted, they do (at least most of them) include properly referenced information, they're just not properly sourced. As soon as possible, a bot is going to add the More sources template to each one. It's our hope that a legitimate source can be easily gleaned from the referencing. As this project continues, these articles may also be put under Verify probation as we go through each one and determine their validity.

How can I help?Edit

The fate of these articles rests totally in your hands. If you don't want to see them deleted, add a valid source to the article. Once you've added a source, please "check off" the article from the lists below by striking it and signing your name with a note below the article link. Also remember to remove the Verify tag from the article after adding a source. This will tell us that the article is no longer eligible for deletion.

But it's not that simple. You must make sure you're providing a legitimate source to the article. You can make sure what you're doing is valid by keeping these things in mind:

  • If you haven't already, browse through Wookieepedia's Attribution policy and Sourcing policy for the key principles on referencing information
  • Read through Wookieepedia's Layout Guide sections on Appearances and Sources lists for an idea of what constitutes reliable source material.
  • No guessing. Just because you think a source applies to a certain article doesn't make it so. Please first verify the information with the actual source before adding it to an article. If you need help, there are people who can answer your questions either in the "Comments" section below, in Wookieepedia's Forum:Senate Hall, Knowledge Bank, or on our IRC channel.
  • This also means that Wookieepedia is not a source. Just because you find information on this wiki does not mean it's valid. Do not add a source to an article because information in a Wookieepedia article tells you so. Check the source yourself!
  • Anyone found purposely inserting false information will be dealt with accordingly by an administrator.

Here are a few examples of year articles that meet Wookieepedia's sourcing policy. Use these as a how-to reference!

Again, the dates are listed below. Good luck!

CommentsEdit

Discussion is held here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:42, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • I was wondering if anyone could clarify how we should treat articles where the date is inferred, rather than directly stated in the "XXX BBY" form. For example, the Living Force Campaign Guide includes a timeline of years in relation to the Invasion of Naboo, e.g. stating that the Tarasin Revolt began "-129" years from the Battle of Naboo. As various sources state that the Battle of Naboo took place in 32 BBY, we can therefore deduce where the events of the LFCG fit in relation to the BBY/ABY system, placing the Tarasin Revolt as beginning in 161 BBY. However, the term "161 BBY" is never explicitly stated anywhere, so would it be a reasonable assumption to source the 161 BBY article to the LFCG? --Jinzler 22:48, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it would be ok. You could add the {{Imo}} tag to the Sources list, and maybe even leave a brief BTS note explaining the ambiguity. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:51, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok, thanks!! --Jinzler 00:00, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • How do we want to approach "ago"s? Many reference books refer to events occurring so may years ago, but are pretty vague about the time period they're set in. DD97Which bear is best? 17:08, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Examples? Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:05, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • Alien Anthology states that Necropolis was colonized 15,000 years ago, but as it's from the WotC game, this could be dated from any time between 32 BBY-25 ABY. The Essential Atlas refers to Nubia as being inhabited for "twenty-two millenia", but not a present day perspective from which to gauge that timeframe. DD97Which bear is best? 05:45, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
        • If it's that ambiguous, I would probably recommend avoiding asserting a hard date or a single year. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:53, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • What about Timeline of galactic history? This page seems to be filled with alot of unsourced info and redirects to Wookieepedia:Constantly recreated pages. OLIOSTER (talk) 10:27, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to go through and semi-protect every deleted year against recreation. Noobs are spamming crap like 112 BBY and 4,000,000 BBY. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 16:10, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I just semi-protected all the articles that are still redlinks. As much as I love deleting things, I don't particularly enjoy re-deleting things. Any article that has been deleted two or more times has been fully protected against recreation. If you want to restore them with a proper source, any administrator may undo this protection under the "undeletion of an item with a clear canonical basis" clause of WP:AA, and I am giving my explicit permission here for any administrator to undo this protection. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:17, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

So what happens now?Edit

The first round of deletions is complete. Any unverified article in the first set of 242 has now been deleted. But that doesn't mean they're gone forever. As with any deleted article, if you discover at any point that an article needs to be recreated, please feel free to do with an appropriate source to very the article's information. Please also leave a note under the appropriate item in the lists below so we know what's going on.

There are still about 66 or so articles remaining in the secondary list of "Notes and references only" articles. From this point forward, depending on the determined viability of any of the referencing therein, any of these remaining articles may be put under "Verify" probation at any time. If they aren't sourced within seven days after that, they will be deleted. So please keep up the good work and let's try to get these final articles sourced. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:55, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

The ListsEdit

Years with No SourceEdit

Pre-Republic era (12)Edit

Expansionist Era (1)Edit

Kymoodon Era (3)Edit

  • 14,975 BBY
  • 14,000 BBY
  • 13,975 BBY
  • 13,720 BBY
    • — Fiolli 04:00, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • 12,500 BBY
    • I've gone through the events listed in these years (Kymoodon Era) and they cannot be properly sourced to the dates listed. They can be sourced to the era, but the dates are conjecture and not really based upon simple math, either. — Fiolli 06:12, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • Herglics made contact with Humans in 12720 BBY. The Lords of the Expanse and the Atlas state, that the Herglic Trade Empire collapsed "a millenia before". Is this good enough for an approximate date of 13720? Darth Morrt 23:36, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
        • Good catch, Morrt. I forgot to see what happened in the Atlas with these. I'll buy 13,720 as an approximate year after rereading some things. I've taken care of it, too. The others (which are way too vaguely inferred from the Alien Anthology) can be canned. If for some reason someone comes up with an obscure source that has it, we can re-add it. —Unsigned comment by Jedimasterfiolli (talk • contribs).

Pius Dea Era (3)Edit

Ductavis Era (2)Edit

Rianitus Period (1)Edit

Subterra Period (6)Edit

Manderon Period (10)Edit

Post-Manderon Period (14)Edit

Old Sith Wars (4)Edit

Inter-Sith Wars Period (5)Edit

Draggulch Period (2)Edit

Republic Classic era (60)Edit

Imperial Period (0)Edit

Post-Imperial Period (1)Edit

Years with Notes and References OnlyEdit

Pre-Republic era (0)Edit

Expansionist Era (0)Edit

Kymodon Era (0)Edit

Subterra Period (0)Edit

  • 7,003 BBY
    • I just hope the TOR won't forget that the Second Great Scism and the Hundred Years Darkness are related, but separate events. Darth Morrt 09:19, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Manderon Period (0)Edit

Post-Manderon Period (0)Edit

Old Sith Wars (3)Edit

Inter-Sith Wars Period (0)Edit

Draggulch Period (0)Edit

  • 1,050 BBY
  • 1,019 BBY
  • 1,013 BBY
    • I'm not sure what do do with this one. The date of 1,013 seems to come from the fact that a certain character in Darth Bane: Rule of Two is 13 years old at the start of the novel, which would indicate that the novel takes place in 1,000 BBY. However, the front matter of the book itself claims that Rule of Two takes place in 1,020 BBY. ~ SavageBob 21:39, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • Wait, Rule of Two says somewhere that it happens before Path of Destruction? That doesn't jibe. DD97Which bear is best? 03:00, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
        • No, the timeline at the front of the book has both occurring "1020 years before Star Wars: A New Hope". ~ SavageBob 03:29, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, common sense trumps that chronological impossibility, so it'd be best to just disregard that timeline in this case. DD97Which bear is best? 03:47, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
            • I've not read either novel, so I have no idea if the dates fit or not, so I'll yield on this particular one. ~ SavageBob 04:15, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
              • IIRC, Nathan Butler explained somewhere on the official forum, that the book's timeline's dates are not dates, but milestones. The Bane books are set after 1020, not in 1020. Just like the NJO books, which are set between 25 and 35, not in 25. Darth Morrt 08:56, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
              • OK, sourced. ~ SavageBob 16:13, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • 1,010 BBY
    • Jinzler 12:22, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • 1,009 BBY
  • 1,003 BBY

Republic Classic era (3)Edit

Imperial Period (0)Edit

  • 14 BBY
    • —Xwing328(Talk) 06:37, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
    • Trying to source some of the other details, Tendra is listed as being born in 14 BBY. In Ambush at Corellia, it says "Tendra Risant was about thirty standard years..." That approximation would place it at 12 BBY since Ambush takes place in 18 ABY. I imagine there's a better source for 14 BBY somewhere though... —Xwing328(Talk) 07:06, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • 13 BBY
    • Jinzler 23:15, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • 4 BBY
    • Omicron 21:51, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Post-Imperial Period (0)Edit

  • 5 ABY
  • 14 ABY
    • Jinzler 11:52, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • 15 ABY
  • 18 ABY
    • Jinzler 12:22, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • 20 ABY
    • Is there anything other than speculation stating that the wedding takes place a year after Vision of the Future? I've always been a member of the 19 ABY camp. Jacen and Jaina don't find out about the engagement until the first issue of Union, anyway. If there's no source confirming the year gap, should this one go? Menkooroo 06:18, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
      • Newer DH Omnibus comic books list Union to 20 ABY. Randy Stradley confirmed somewhere on the DH forum, that the Licensing requested the change. Maybe Zahn is behind this, but that's just my speculation. Darth Morrt 11:01, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
        • FWIW, New Essential Chronology clearly marks the wedding as 19 ABY. I'm not sure what material Morrt is referring to. The referencing in this article, regarding Gavrisom's office term, appears to be extrapolation/speculation. NEC only states that he won the election for Chief of State in 19 ABY, with no specific reference at all to 20 ABY. This article will likely be a "Verify" candidate before too long unless you guys can dig something up. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:11, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
          • I found this thread on the Dark Horse boards, which seem to indicate the change went in the opposite direction to what Darth Morrt remembers; the comics used to be at 20 ABY, but were moved to 19 ABY. jSarek 00:04, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
            • I misremembered. Dark Horse's timeline was changed sometime in 2008 or 2009, years after NEC. Darth Morrt 00:11, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sourced date to Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide. Source doesn't actually give any information for the year, but it mentions it in a timeline graphic. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:43, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • 21 ABY
  • 22 ABY
    • Jinzler 11:52, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • 34 ABY
  • 104 ABY
    • Leland Chee has stated that Lucas's comment about Artoo and the Shaman of the Whills should be taken with a grain of salt. Are we cool with jettisoning the first point in this article? Menkooroo 06:18, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sourced. Imperators II(Talk) 13:41, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
  • 127 ABY
Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:SH:The_Super-Terrific_Wookiee-Tastic_Year-Article_Sourcing_Beautification_Project"

Pages on Wookieepedia

Add a Page
93,427pages on
this wiki

Latest Photos

Add an Image
49,806images on this wiki
See more >

Recent Wiki Activity

See more >

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki