Talk:Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

Contents

[edit] Canon?

Are the books fully canon to the actual series? --67.165.14.140 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the first stuff

To 172.196.114.254: Actually, both Star Dreadnaught and Star Battlecruiser were on P.23 (Republic Assault Ship) of the AOTC:ICS. AFAIK, this is the first official mention of the two terms. On the other hand, upon further checking, my memory may be wrong on the time period of the third criticism. It may have been Saxton's second publication, the ITW:OT that caused the main uproar rather than the AOTC:ICS. It is not easy to find relevant posts deep in the past, especially on TFN, but I'm working on it.--Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:24 May 31st 2005.

Finished checking. I can now say almost for certain I remembered incorrectly, and the uproar with Star Dreadnought was caused when the ITW:OT redesignated the Executor as a Star Dreadnought. Sorry for the mistake. I did my draft in a hurry (as can be seen from the typos). --[[Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:42 May 31st 2005.

The article should probably be renamed to Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections. "AOTC:ICS" isn't very descriptive, and acronyms seem to be discouraged for article titles on Wikipedia. --Vermilion 04:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does (almost) qualify for "almost exclusively known by its acronyms", and it is easier to set a link to. What we really need is to set up a redirect for all of the AOTC:ICS's forms. Once those redirects are set up, it almost doesn't matter which name you use - all the common usages redirect here.

[edit] Criticism sections

The criticism sections for the AOTC:ICS and ROTS:ICS violate WP:WEASEL up, down, through, and sideways. I'm putting in the tag, and we'll go from there. Rogue 9 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of fan criticisms of a book that stem from a versus debate, particularly when criticisms are only listed for two books, and the criticisms take up more space than the actual descriptions of the books. Wikipedia is hardly the place for partisan sniping based on the discontent of some segment or other of the fan community. I have removed the criticism sections as irrelevant.

I have reverted the mass deletes without discussion. Instead, I have added sources to AOTC:ICS criticisms. ROTS:ICS sources could take time though since many of the sources come from deep inside various discussion boards.New guy 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Are we going to turn Wikipedia into a versus debate forum now? One guy puts one claim in, someone puts a counter-claim, then another, and another? That's the only way it could possibly be neutral given what you put in that section, and it will go on forever. In short, Wikipedia isn't the place for this. It's an encylopedia, not a soapbox, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Citing forum posts (as well as the website link to what I understand is your own webpage) also violates the no original research policy:
It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Beryoza 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Especially instructive in the reason for no original research: The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves. and It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose.'Beryoza 13:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write any of those sources. And you aren't the boss; You can't unilaterally judge the rules yourself. New guy 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
New Guy, stop including material which is not only irrelevant but also in breach of the rules.

81.224.212.49 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you wrote any of them or not. As for unilaterally judging the rules myself, sorry, but the original research stipulation (together with what constitutes a reliable source) is crystal clear. It is personal analysis and interpretation of published material to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, and it's glaringly obvious. You want to advance a position that it's none of those things, you're welcome to try, but I can't possibly see how that argument would fly. You're putting specific versus debate arguments there as well also violates the neutrality of the article with weasel words, and as I said, the only way to make it neutral would be to post rebuttals to those claims- which would turn this entry into a versus debate forum in microcosm. We already have an entry in Wikipedia about Trek vs Wars. It's more than enough.Beryoza 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
On that basis, I have removed the criticism section but kept the sentence in relation to the vs debate. Anyone interested in that can go there, and follow the links to the relevant websites at their leisure- it provides a very good summary of the AotC:ICS place in the versus debate as it is. But this article is not the place for random (not to mention much simplified and generally unsatisfactory from a neutrality point of view) examples of versus debate arguments and forum links to what random people in that tiny subset of esoteric debate argue about.Beryoza 03:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You can also be simply wrong in your judgement. Get a credible third opinion before doing anything.New guy 06:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And a credible third opinion is who? I've actually justified my position. You haven't justified why you think these paragraphs should be here at all, especially when there's already a perfectly good entry about it in the Trek versus War entry.Beryoza 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The person who brought this up didn't feel the need to delete it. Obviously, it isn't as clear cut as you claim. You'd best look for other credible (and neutral) third opinion.New guy 07:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You're clearly not interested in actually discussing anything about this or answering my criticisms of itt. When you actually do something more than revert deletions without actually defending why you think it belongs- (which is the purpose of Rogue 9's notification), let me know. As for your "credible and neutral" third opinion stipulation, I don't see why this is necessary when the only guy who thinks it belongs obviously refuses to discuss anything and simply reverts without justification.Beryoza 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel the need to see it fixed, whether that means rewording or removal. As it isn't my argument, I have no idea who or what all the unnamed supporters, unnamed critics, and unnamed objections might be. If it isn't cleaned up and made to conform to WP:WEASEL, the only fix I will know how to implement is removal of the material until such time as it can be rewritten to conform to policy. Rogue 9 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the first sross section book

sorry to drop this here, was wonder if anyone wants to help and make a "cross section book list". I knew of the star wars ones, but have a 1974 childs book, 'big joe's trailer truck' which has a cross sections of a big rig. thanks-- FyiFoff 13:06 20 November 2006 (EST)