Forum:TC:Template:ImpSupreme Commanders

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Template:ImpSupreme Commanders

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was insufficient consensus, templates are kept. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:ImpSupreme Commanders ([[Talk:Template:ImpSupreme_Commanders|talk]] - history - links - logs)

Also, [[Template:COS]] ([[Talk:Template:COS|talk]] - history - links - logs)

Pure and utter crap. We don't need little nav boxes for everything, and especially not for people (half of whom are probably conjecture and fanon) holding similar positions in three or five different governments. If I weren't logged out, I'd kill the damn thing myself. Havac 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have also now put {{COS}} up for deletion based on the same major principle: it's a collection of people across even more disparate governments. Why not just have a template with every Chief of State in every government ever? We have to draw a line somewhere before we end up with Template:Humans. Templates ought to allow the user to navigate between a distinct, definite, and identifiable group of people -- not everyone who ever held a vaguely similar job title. They also shouldn't just be giant duplicated categories at the bottom of every page. Havac 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that Mon Mothma and Leia held vaguely similar titles? I mean do you see every head of every government on that template? Or just the family governments that come from the Rebel Alliance? Last time I checked, the template possessed subsections to destinct between each government. It's not like they're all smashed together.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo^{(Imperial HoloNet)} 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where "Chief of State of the Galactic Alliance" is the same position as "Fuhrer of the Alliance to Restore the Republic" is the same position as "Former Mid-ranking Admiral Leading What's Left of the GA" is the same position as "President of the New Republic". The fact that it possesses subsections is immaterial. It should then be split into single templates for each category, not one for every government that ever lived and had anything to do with another government. And even then, I'd raise the question, "What is this doing that the identical category is not? What benefit does this actually provide to the reader?" Havac 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Since when have categories been more convenient than nav boxes? And I find you Category:Human comment to be completely irrelevant. Nav boxes are used for a select group of people, not a large, possibly infinite group like humans. Besides, if we delete these, then we eliminate the distinction between what's acceptable and what isn't. As for your comment below, do you propose we go around deleting articles that mispell Tyranus? Or for that matter any article containing mispellings? I can't see a mispelled word as grounds for deletion. All in all, spelling is irrelevant to a template's usefulness.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo^{(Imperial HoloNet)} 17:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Categories are one click more than a nav box. Boo-hoo. We aren't going around replacing all categories with nav boxes, so clearly we're able to get along just fine with categories. As for the rest of your argument, you're playing right into my hands. Nav boxes are for select groups. Not for people holding similar positions across multiple governments. They're for supreme commanders of the Galactic Empire . . . not supreme commanders in any damn government that ever had the word "Imperial" associated with it. Havac 02:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
          • As I said, nav boxes suffice for small groups, not whole categories. Furthermore, I can hardly consider Galactic Empire and Imperial Remnant every government with "Imperial" associated with it. There are considerably more.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo^{(Imperial HoloNet)} 02:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete

1. Havac 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
2. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) ^(Chow) 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
3. What he said. These kind of templates are pointless, since the succession box listed right below them will provide readers with the info, and can be sourced, eliminating the possibility of fanon going on FAs (or any articles, really). They look really bad, too. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
   • Not all articles with a nav box have succession boxes as well.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo^{(Imperial HoloNet)}
4. I agree with Havac's overall argument about treating people-navboxes conservatively. Frankly, I don't think we should have any that are not "self-sourcing" (per Ackbar above). But I also agree with Goodwood that templates of this sort should go through the usual TC process. That being said, however, THESE templates achieve nothing. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I don't think Gar Stazi would make a claim of CoS-hood, and so forth. LtNOWIS 13:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
7. These templates assume that there isn't something very fundamentally different between the different governments contained within them. Jumping from NR to GA, for example, is a bit of a stretch for me. It'd be like jumping from Republic to either Empire or Rebellion—both are simply too far removed from the Republic to make the crossing. Graestan^(Talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
8. It's not necessary. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 02:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Per Ackbar Kyp 01:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep

1. No, they are all listed as Supreme Commanders of the Imperial Fleet. None of them are conjectural or fanon. If somethings wrong with the supreme commander page, do something there so that the template can be improved. Moreover, how can Chiefs of States and Grand Admirals deserve nav templates, but Supreme Commanders don't? This makes no sense.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo^{(Imperial HoloNet)} 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
   • They're listed as that by Wookieepedia. The identification of several of them as such has long been suspect. Kermen, for example, is merely cited in the actual source in which he appears as the commander of the Imperial fleet in the Core. Balan's identification as an actual Imperial Supreme Commander is pretty damn sketchy, too. Only Vader and Pellaeon, have, AFAIK, been identified as SCOTIF (and with Pellaeon's F being Fleet and Vader's being Forces). But more important is that they span three governments. We have a nav template only for the original thirteen Grand Admrials. Neither Veed nor Pellaeon are included. It's a distinct group. Here, we have people who served some sort of supreme commander role in the Empire, Remnant, and Fel Empire (which is left out of the header). It's not a distinct group. It's a nav-box of potpourri. And I'm glad you've brought the COS nav-box to my attention. That's colossal bullshit. Consider it nominated as well. Havac 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
     • The Fleet is still the fleet, whether it takes commands from the Empire, Remnat, or anyone else. And besides, is it not possible to separate the members of the nav box into smaller, more specific nav boxes? As oppossed to just blasting the whole damn thing? Let's not be too trigger-happy, if you'll pardon the cliché.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo^{(Imperial HoloNet)} 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
2. SFH 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Per above. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) ^(Chow) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Per above, with the annotation that templates shouldn't be deleted out of hand, just like established article pages; the TC process should apply as well.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 04:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Per everyone. Unit 8311 09:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Per above. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 11:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Could be useful with some changes. KEJ 12:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Can't believe I'm doing this, but for things like COS and Supreme Commanders...yeah, I think it warrants a template. {{AnakinFriends}} and {{LukeFriends}} are utter poo, though. So, whilst I'm heartily against having them for everything, titles such as those posted here are..."notable" enough, I feel. Thefourdotelipsis 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
   • They may warrant a template . . . but they don't warrant these templates. Havac 02:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'll point out that not every nav box-type template for people are "utter crap". We have several people-related templates that work just fine, and I think this one could work if those who care could decide what should be included. I'm not going to vote either "keep" or "delete", since I have a feeling that this is only an issue due to the fact that Template:ImpSupreme Commanders was added to certain articles. Greyman@wikia^(Talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've not said it's utter crap. I'm happy with the Grand Admirals one. I've created nav boxes myself for Jedi Councils. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of nav boxes. But nav boxes should be about a distinct, discrete, identifiable group of people, and they should not exactly duplicate a category. The Jedi Council ones are model nav-boxes: they show you who sat on the Council at a given time, something categories do not duplicate and something that is clear, distinct, discrete, and identifiable. If we had a nav box of Every Jedi Council Member Ever, I'd call BS on that too. If we had a nav box of Jedi Grand Masters encompassing Luke, Yoda, and Nomi, because Nomi Did Something Like Being A Grand Master And So We've Wookieedeclared Her To Be One, I'd call BS on that as being fanony. If we had a nav box of "Leaders of Any And All Governments That Could Be Considered Imperial" with Palpatine, Roan Fel, Teradoc, Daala, the Moff Council, Carivus, Zsinj, Foga Brill, Harrsk, Pellaeon, Delvardus, and Those Four Royal Guardsmen all slapped together haphazardly into one template . . . I'd call massive BS on that, and that's exactly what this is. It's a collection of people in a collection of unrelated or semirelated governments, several of whom have their right to be on that template in question, thrown together for fanboyism. Break it down into Actual Supreme Commanders of The Galactic Empire (none of the other governments have enough supreme commanders to justify a nav box) and I might be able to live with it. But as is, it's utterly ridiculous. Additionally, while its being put on Pellaeon did bring its existence to my attention . . . it's its very existence, the fact that such a horrendous excuse for a nav box of potpourri is setting the stage for the eventual creep to the nav box for Any And All People Ever Regarded As Crimelords, and not its existence on Pellaeon, that offends me. You'll note that the COS one is not on any article I've ever written, but upon having its existence brought to my attention, I nommed that monstrosity too. Havac 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I only ever mentioned Template:ImpSupreme Commanders, I didn't say anything else about the other one simply because I don't care enough to get worked up over a set of code. I still believe that this template is worth something, if even one or two others don't (and I'm still not going to vote keep, mainly because I don't think I would vote "keep" for the right reasons ;-) ). When I originally saw the template created in the RC's, I thought that the template covered way too long a time period and I was close to deleting it; but, I took a step back and thought about it, and thought that it might work if split up into eras, or something else. I still believe that if the users with the correct knowledge of the topics (of whom, some can be found on this CT :-P ) actually discussed it, instead of whatever else, then something positive might be accomplished. If no one wants to, then the outcome of the CT will decide it either way, neither of which will impact my time on the site at all. If it is decided that the template should be kept, then I think that an overhaul of it should still be made to narrow it down some, and/or to get rid of the conflict that initially arose over its creation. Greyman@wikia^(Talk) 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, that was kind of my point. If you want to keep it as a nav box of Galactic Empire supreme commanders, fine. But in its present form, it's a disgrace, and it's starting us on the slippery fanboy slope to nav boxes of everything under the sun and everything all together. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what nav boxes should be and do, and it's an abuse of the nav box system. As I said, if I had my powers, it would have been gone the instant I saw it. It's an absolute disgrace. It's almost as abominable as the Dark Acolytes nav box (which accomplishes not a damn thing that the category doesn't and is another nav box that should be shot and then burned in effigy) that misspelled Darth Tyranus. We don't need nav boxes for every disparate and minimally coherent grouping of people you can dream up. Havac 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)