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. Graestan(Talk) 21:24, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Take an article like First mission to Raxus Prime. Titles like these, in my opinion, do not follow a neutral point of view. The "mission" was Starkiller's, but on the other side of the battle it was all about defending their ground. The Battle of Hoth was a "mission" given to Darth Vader and his forces to wipe out Echo Base, but we wouldn't refer to it as that.
I'm also thinking for mission articles that don't have much substance besides a conflict between two characters, maybe we could ditch them and just incorporate the information into the respective character articles, since its probably already covered there anyway... DjMack 00:21, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
History is written by the winners. But seriously, isn't "Battle of Hoth" its canonical name? I see where you're coming from on this, but for some of these, its their canon name. OLIOSTER(talk) 03:24, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Olioster that when something has a canonical name (like the Battle of Hoth, the Battle of Yavin), we should go with that. If there are two sides, I don't see how "Battle of ___" is POV, anyway, since it doesn't privilege one side over the other. As for "mission" articles, we seem to be operating under the notion that we name the article for the side that instigated things (in other words, the side that sent someone to do something, rather than the side that was invaded or infiltrated or attacked). As long as we do this consistently, I'd say that's about as NPOV as we're going to get, unless someone else has an idea. ~ SavageBob 17:05, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
I believe he's suggesting that Mission to Raxus Prime, as a specific example, isn't neutral. Many of the participants were already on Raxus Prime (thus they couldn't go to it) and weren't on a mission. The title doesn't equally represent both sides of the conflict. It is an apt title from the POV of Starkiller/Vader/TFU Player, but the title doesn't accurately represent the defenders' version of the event. If the article were named, "Defense of Raxus Prime," it would represent the exact opposite bias, favoring the defenders' POV over that of the foreign assassin. A more neutral title could be something like "Raid on the Raxus Prime Junk Temple."
Unless I miss my guess, DjMack only brought up the Battle of Hoth to highlight that bias. Calling it "Mission to Raxus Prime" would be like going with the title "Mission to destroy Echo Base," instead of "Battle of Hoth." Such a title wouldn't be neutral, but we have several conjectural article titles with that sort of "favoritism" on The Wook. SinisterSamurai 18:03, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
Again, "Battle of Hoth" is not a POV name; a battle requires two sides fighting each other, and both were. We would get further if we did not try to conflate battles with missions, as they are not the same thing. And, again, as for missions, as long as we privilege the side that sent someone somewhere to do something (no matter who the sides are), I don't see how that's POV. We could just as easily privilege the side that got invaded or infiltrated, but we have to call the article something, so if we're consistently privileging the aggressive party, what's the problem? ~ SavageBob 18:21, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
My explanations or composition must lacking. I don't believe anyone is saying that "Battle of Hoth" is POV. What was suggested was that a conjectural title like "Defense of Echo Base," etc would be POVish/non-neutral, as the title favors a particular point of view.
I was not personally aware that Missions and Battles are accountable to a different set of rules regarding neutrality, and I shall browse our guides and consensus archives to see if I can find policy to that effect. SinisterSamurai 19:10, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
That's not my argument. My argument is that, unlike with "Battle of" articles, there is no "neutral" name for a "mission to" article. Instead, the best we can do is to privilege one side or the other on a relative basis, writing from the point of view of a "mission" rather than a "defense" no matter what faction is on the sending or receiving end. If you have an idea for how to title these articles so that neither side is privileged, I'm all ears. ~ SavageBob 20:08, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't have an outstanding problem with the existing title. I was simply trying to clarify what I interpreted DjMack's argument to be. However, off the top of my head "Assassination of Kazdan Paratus", "Raid on Raxus Prime (Dark Times)," all seem a little more neutral to me than "Mission to Raxus Prime." SinisterSamurai 20:21, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
OK, I can agree to that. Whenever possible, articles should have a neutral title, and, yes, some mission articles could be given more neutral names than "Mission to" implies. Perhaps the OP should start a CT proposing something to this effect. ~ SavageBob 21:13, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
How about maybe "Conflict at the Junk Yard Temple?" That's all I can think of. MasterFred(Whatever) 22:32, January 24, 2011 (UTC)