Talk:Galactic Alliance Remnant

Back to page

1 The new Rebel Alliance
2 Image
3 Edit war
4 Rewrite to avoid edit warring
5 Change title to Galactic Alliance Remnant?
6 Infantry
7 Galactic Support Section?
8 Reorganized
9 New Galactic Alliance

The new Rebel AllianceEdit

Comments made during a recent chat conducted by Theforce.net confirmed that the Core Forces are the remnants of the Galactic Alliance. Ms. Duursema said that we will be given more info on them in the coming issues. I must confess that this news relieves me greatly, being such a fan of the democratic governments of Star Wars. AdmiralNick22 14:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Edit

I added this shot from the cover of Legacy . It shows a rear view of the new Galactic Alliance battle cruiser that Randy Stradley hinted at. Does anyone mind the addition? AdmiralNick22 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's nice. :) VT-16 21:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war Edit

Please step away, both of you. One more revert, McEwok, and you will commit a 3RR violation. Can't you settle it on the talk page? - Sikon 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that McEwok should get a block now? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand what there is to settle here, Sikon. "Forces" is a plural noun, agreeing in English with "were", not "was"; Jan Duursema is recorded referring to the Galactic Alliance Core Forces in the plural, as "them" not "it". You can't arbitrarily change the verb to "was": it's the equivalent of saying "the Jedi Knights was" or "the Outer Rim Territories was". --McEwok 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  - McEwok is right, I think: though both forms might be used in common speech, "forces are" is more common, arguably more grammatical, and follows Duursema's use. And before anyone tries to say it's an American/British/Canadian difference here, do a Google search on "united states armed forces are" vs. "united states armed forces is". Restrict it to American web pages, or even American gov't pages if you like, you'll find the same thing. (Of course, I can see people saying "the Outer Rim Territories is a vast region of space", just as you might say "the United States is a large country." Which brings us back to "what do the sources generally use?") —Silly Dan _(talk) 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, because he reverted three times. If he reverted four times, it would be a violation. - Sikon 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Didn't it used to be three times (hence "3-Revert-Rule")? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    - The 3RR means you can't revert more than three times in 24 hours. If you revert exactly three times, it's technically not a violation. - Sikon 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me remind you that not everything Jan Duursema says is automatically canon. And so far, there is no evidence suggesting that there are mutiple Galactic Alliance Core Forces. Right now, there's only one. And, as Silly Dan pointed out, not everything ending in an "s" has to be followed by "are" or "were". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- In the absence of any other evidence, it seems to me best to follow the rules of conventional grammar combined with what the creator has said outside of the source text. (I don't understand this "only one Core Forces" business: every other Armed Forces referred to as plural is unique. There's only one Canadian Forces, Japan Self-Defense Forces, United States Armed Forces, etc., but people generally say "the ******* Forces are.") —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Silly Dan, there's not actually evidence either way, really. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Or, better yet: Ask Leland Chee. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Jack, if we ask him questions on grammar and usage rather than continuity and canon, all we'd do is annoy him. He has no special authority as a grammarian. —Silly Dan _(talk) 16:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        No, we ask him if it was one Core Force or mutiple Core Forces in one. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        Gents, odds are that our questions will be answered in a few weeks in Legacy #9. Such bickering is pointless. However, if someone feels the need to ask a question I think that the Dark Horse forums is the best spot. Randy, Jan, and John view those pages daily. Perhaps someone should create a page asking a question about the Core Force? AdmiralNick22 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        Leland Chee is the Keeper of the Holocron. Everything that Randy, Jan, and John say in the forums isn't necessarily canon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        But, Chee responds less frequently. Furthermore, most things that the creators of the comic say tend to end up being canon. I was just throwing out ideas so speed up a resolution to this matter. AdmiralNick22 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        "Furthermore, most things that the creators of the comic say tend to end up being canon." Not true. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        Uh, true in many cases. Not all, but they do carry alot fo weight unless proven wrong by Chee or some other official source. AdmiralNick22 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        Everything that they don't put into their comics is not canon. It's as simple as that. Leland Chee is the one to ask. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nebulax: we ask him if it was one Core Force or mutiple Core Forces in one....
Ahh! I think I finally see your point! Legacy #0 says "Core Force" rather than "Core Forces". If you were changing the name on the page, as well as the verb, then that would have been clearer a long time ago: but all subsequent references seem to be to "Core Forces". Changing the verb without the name just made no sense to the rest of us - but there is a real question here, and one it would be good to get an answer to. --McEwok 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I still think it's called "Galactic Alliance Core Forces", although it's just one organization. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why all this talk of canon is even an issue here. It's simple grammar. "Forces" is plural. English grammar and Jan Duursema back up it being a plural. Nothing in canon or out of it backs up it being a singular. The most I've seen has been "well, it could be singular", which isn't enough. - Lord Hydronium 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  - There are exceptions to the rule, which is why we're going to establish if this is one organization (and if we should change it to "Galactic Alliance Core Force") or many in one. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Like I said, "this could be an exception" isn't support, it's speculation. English grammar is fact. And as Silly Dan has pointed out, grammar allows it to be plural even as one organization. - Lord Hydronium 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      - And even so, sometimes those examples use the verb "is" rather than "are". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        Note that all of his examples with the word "forces" were treated as a plural. - Lord Hydronium 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        And note that I'm saying that that's not always the case. Now, let's see what Leland Chee has to say. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        You have no points to support it being singular; all you have is a vague "well, it might be". On the other hand, the fact that "Forces" is a plural noun in the English language and one of the creators uses it as a plural supports it being plural. And if, as you say, there's no canon backing for either, then logically we should go with the one that has the most backing elsewhere, no? - Lord Hydronium 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        I take it that, in your stubbornness, you didn't read what McEwok last posted: "Legacy #0 says 'Core Force' rather than 'Core Forces' ". Now do you see why we have to establish whether or this was one organization? Or are you going to keep scolding me for no purpose? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No-one disagrees with that, Nebulax. What's in dispute is your insistence on combining plural "Forces" with singular "was" in the first sentence of the article. Now, what puzzles me is why you're switching from one position to another here: I can't think of any reason for this that doesn't make you a troll. --McEwok 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

- If this discussion has degenerated into a mere name-calling war, please take it elsewhere or better yet, just stop. And find something more impressive to argue over than an "s". Seriously. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, there's a simple problem here; what's allowed it to "degenerate" is the fact that Wookieepedia seems to lack a comparably simple solution to deal with it.
The opening sentence of the article should read "The Galactic Alliance Core Forces were..." (or possibly "... Core Force was..."). "...Core Forces was..." is simply wrong. --McEwok 20:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

McEwok, first of all, I've kept the same position throughout this whole thing. And don't call me a trol. In addition, you have to realize that while "Core Forces was" does not sound right at all, it is sometimes used that way. Don't blame me. Blame the English professor who wrote the English book I refer to. But now we must find out what is right: Core Forces, or Core Force. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nebulax, I'm in two minds about what to do here. If you're a troll, you're actually quite funny, and you've successfully hoodwinked the entire Wookieepedia admin staff for several years—you deserve some sort of warped kudos, if that's the case; on the other hand, whatever your motivations really are, I feel I ought to point out the glaring inconsistencies between the lines you take in different posts, and I want to get the page fixed... but I can see no way to do that without simply providing a platform for this pointless bickering to continue. Thoughts, anyone? How do we bring this to a resolution to situations like this? --McEwok 16:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm not a troll. Stop calling me that. 2) Ask Leland Chee already if it's "Core Force" or "Core Forces". After that, I won't care what happens with "was" or "were". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus on the "was"/"were" sitiuation for now: "Core Forces" (a plural noun) should take a plural verb ("were"), unless there's evidence that it's an exception to the rules. There is no evidence for an exception in this case, so there are no grounds for saying "Core Forces was". It's a very minor issue in global terms, but a grammar gaffe like that in the first sentence of an article makes this wiki look unprofessional.
Do you have any reason for opposing a change to "Core Forces were" until we can confirm whether it's "Force" or "Forces"? --McEwok 00:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

McEwok, do you even read what I write? "Ask Leland Chee already if it's 'Core Force' or 'Core Forces'. After that, I won't care what happens with 'was' or 'were' ". Start paying attention. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite to avoid edit warring Edit

I suggest we rewrite this article using creative sentence structure to avoid use of "was" or "were." (I'm still convinced "were" is correct, though.) After a few more issues feature the GACF, the name and in-universe grammar will be clearer. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In all honestly, I don't see why we need that "creative" solution. In the absence of other evidence, "were" is correct with "Core Forces"—a straightforward decision about grammar that should have been made instantly.
There is a seperate question of whether "Core Force" or "Core Forces" is correct: this does need solved, I agree, but the simplest answer here is just to wait and see what issue #9 says, and correct the page then if it needs to be. --McEwok 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't care if anyone changes it back: this was done back when I thought Jack was going to return to continue the arguement. This edit was meant to stop him from complaining once the block has expired: instead, he's decided to leave. There is currently no such thing as a fast-track grammar dispute resolution, other than reporting the problem at Forum:Administrator's noticeboard. He was warned on the 16th, and was blocked on the 28th. That's about all we can do, unless someone wants to come up with a faster resolution program. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Okay, edited it. If anyone still has issues, I agree that editing it back into neutrality is the best way to defuse the situation (though I'm not aware of any evidence yet to show whether the Core Forces were allied with the Triumvirate or opposed to them). --McEwok 10:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Change title to Galactic Alliance Remnant? Edit

I have been thinking, shoudl we change the title to Galactic Alliance Remnant? So far, every mention in [i]Legacy[/i] minus issue# 0 has refered to the Galactic Alliance as a remnant, not Core Forces. We have Remnant Fleet used in #9, Remnant Forces used in #15, and plain old GA Remnant used several other times. Does this warrant a change? John chimed in a bit on this issue over on the JC Forums, but he leaves it a bit open ended. See link below: http://boards.theforce.net/authors_artists/b10347/5863919/p89

Anyways, what is the Wookieepedia policy for names? Remnant gets used a bunch more, but it may bot be official yet, at least until John clarifys it in print. Thoughts? I am curious what others think. AdmiralNick22 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We prefer to use the most accurate, most complete name that is canon. QuentinGeorge 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Which is canon? The mention in #0 or all the mentions in the following issue? IMO, there is some legitimacy for both titles. What do we do. :-p AdmiralNick22 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  - I say we move it to Galactic Alliance Remnant. The current title seems to falsely indicate that there was more than one Core Force. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    - I am leaning towards Remnant myself. Based on John Ostrander's comments, Core Forces was probably a term used to denote Alliance warships operating in the Core Worlds during the Sith-Imperial War. Which makes sense since the final battle took place over Caamas- a Core world. However, I am curious to see what others think. AdmiralNick22 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      - I take it no one cares about the name? Which one is most appropriate, given the evidence? :-p AdmiralNick22 01:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        I still say "Galactic Alliance Remnant". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        Moved. Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        Excellent. I think that the name is far more appropriate. AdmiralNick22 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Infantry Edit

Anyone have any idea what the core forces infantry are supposed to look like? (pic, link, or description would be nice)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Galactic_Alliance_Infantry_Trooper

This should be incorporated into the article somehow 71.36.58.137 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Support Section? Edit

The Essential Atlas tells us exactly whch planets and other Galactic governments are supporting the Remnant (Mon Calamari, Ryloth, Sluis Van, Hutt Space, etc...). Should there be a section listing these supporters?

Reorganized Edit

Can someone update the page to reflect that the GA Remnant was reorganized back into the full Galactic Alliance.

New Galactic Alliance Edit

Should a page called New Galactic Alliance or New Galactic Federation be created? 70.179.36.58 23:50, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

When it says the organisation was dissolved in 138 ABY, it wasn't it was reorganised into the Galactic Federation Triumvirate alongside the Empire-in-exile and the New Jedi Order, in which the last two it edited for. Someone else needs to edit that detail, since I can't edit protected pages.

Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Galactic_Alliance_Remnant"

Wikia