Fandom

Wookieepedia

Talk:Heir to the Empire: The 20th Anniversary Edition

English

Talk:Heir to the Empire: The 20th Anniversary Edition

Back to page

135,465pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Heir to the Empire: The 20th Anniversary Edition."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

No mergeEdit

  • Responding to DigiFluid's comment in the edit summary: "Don't think there's any reason for this to be a separate page when there's a whole article for the original publication. Why not just a subsection there?"
    • The articles should not be merged. This is a separate publication with annotations from the author. As such, it needs a separate page to be listed separately in "Sources" lists as well as "Appearances." The commentary from Zahn is not an "Appearance" -- it is a "Source." No merge, please. ~SavageBOB sig 20:30, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
      • I completely disagree. It's the same book, with a new cover and two new forewords (and annotations you mention here that aren't covered in the article as it is currently). This article is currently a whole of one paragraph, but even going into detail about these three new sections–we're talking about a handful of paragraphs at most. Keeping this as a separate page, to me, is a case of "because we can", and not "because we should." It's silly, and really ought to be merged. – DigiFluid 20:49, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
        • It's different, though. It's a different book. It's like Tales from the Endor Woods: Previous content that has been changed enough to warrant a new article. My argument isn't that we should keep this because we can, it's because we should. The annotations from Zahn add very important BTS information for a bunch of articles, and keeping this separate makes it easier to list this as a "Source" rather than an "Appearance" in such cases. ~SavageBOB sig 20:54, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
          • Also, when a writer needs to reference BTS information found in either the forewords or annotations, they need to be able to link to the source in which the information was actually found, not a previous version of the source that did not contain the information. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 21:16, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
            • And why not? If the information is in a single, coherent, logical source, there's your existing reference. No need to waste time citing things twice when the information is already where it should be in the first place. – DigiFluid 21:26, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
              • It wouldn't be logical to cite annotation information simply to "Heir to the Empire" because that's not where the information would be found. It would be found in the 20th Anniversary Edition. Two different things, ergo two different articles. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 21:30, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
                • But it's the same thing, published at different times. KOTOR is KOTOR, whether it's version 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2 (making an example, not pointing to specific changes). Why on Earth would we treat HttE 1.0 and 1.1 differently just because it has some new content which is minor when compared with the previous release? It doesn't make any sense to do them separately when, at the core, it's the same thing. – DigiFluid 21:38, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
                  • Your not getting Trayus's point. With new forwards and annotations that only appear in the 20thy eddition, you can't just source it to the original Heir. 501st DogmaRepublic emblem(Comlink) 21:57, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
                    • On the contrary–I am getting it. I just don't think it holds any water at all. Citation for something in the HttE1.1 additions, bam: link to the HttE page, where the newer information is already part of it. No conflict, no extra work, just pointing where it should in the first place because there's already an appropriate article in place. I can accept being voted down, that's what consensus-seeking is all about. But it would help me out a great deal if someone could present a position that amounts to something more logical than "1.0 is completely different than 1.1!" – DigiFluid 22:03, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
                      • Well, the argument isn't that HttE 20th is completely different—the argument is that it's different enough. There's no hard and fast rule, but it's my opinion that the new material should qualify this as a separate source with a separate article. I think it's more an art than a science to figure out when such things deserve their own articles, which is why it's good you brought up the issue. We just seem to disagree on how "new" the new HttE is. ~SavageBOB sig 22:45, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  • LOST-Malachi redirected the page, but I reverted the redirection. The reason is that the consensus here seemed to be to keep the page as is, but the merge template never got removed. If folks want to reopen the debate, we should do that, but we should reach consensus to redirect the page IMO. ~SavageBOB sig 09:53, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.