Talk:Rebel Legion

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Star Wars Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Star Wars To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles.
Citing sources : Jedi, Sith
Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs
Other : * See the things to do page
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

MrTexas (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (COI declared in this edit on article talk page.)
Leroni Verderoc (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (COI declared in this edit on User talk:TenTonParasol.)

Notability

Hi, I am Chris Hummel, the PR Officer for the Rebel Legion. I see there is a dispute on our notability here? We are the main source of The Walt Disney company for representation of their events associated with Star Wars on the Rebel side (good guys). I am not sure how that is not refelctive enough of our status as a notable organization. I am still working on pulling things up but our sources will be people vouching for us. I can get with Pete Vilmur, the senior writer and person in charge of Fan Relations with Lucasfilm, to verify if needed. Thank you for your assistance with this.

MrTexas (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail

This article contains too much extraneous detail that is not really needed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:FANCRUFT. Even though this AfD resulted in a keep, it was quite rightly pointed out that the article has a number of serious problems which need to be fixed. The organization seems to do lots of good thing and participate in various charitable events, so those are the things that should be the focus of the article. It's OK to list the various chapters, etc., but this can be done in a much more concise way without all of the tables, logos and other stuff. Wikipedia article should reflect what reliable sources say about the organization and focus on it main activities and what makes it Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article. Too many irrelevant details just adds to the length of the article and makes it hard to read. Wikipedia is not intended to be Wikia or a personal website, and much of the information currently in the article simply does not belong. I understand that some editors have put in a significant amount of time and effort into adding this content, but Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone group or individual and information can be added/removed by anyone in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not trying to insult those who belong to this group by using words such as "extraneous" or "irrelevant", etc., but the article needs to be written with a more general audience in mind and not just fans of Star Wars or of this group. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. I had a simpler version and a member of our group in Europe felt Wikipedia was a good source of information for them to attain material in their own language since it is easier translated than our own web site.

We will get working on removing the "extra" stuff and add appropriate links instead. MrTexas (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrTexas: I notice that there is a note of a conflict of interest at the top of this page listing you. I recommend you take a look at the Conflict of interest guideline. I, and the editing community, have to ask that you avoid editing or creating articles related to the Rebel Legion (I would also say, avoid editing articles of the sister organization the 501st Legion, and any other LFL sanctioned costuming groups as well) and instead, propose changes on the talk pages of articles in question (the {{request edit}} template is good for this purpose)so that someone unaffiliated with the organization, such as myself or another editor, may add them if it is appropriate.

Additionally, most of the over-detail that was hanging around on the article has been trimmed already, but I'll be glad to help expand the article relevantly if you make requests for what you believe should be added, provided it is appropriate and there is a reliable source to attribute it to. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links of potential usefulness

A lot of articles I've found have passing mention, which might be useful to cite stray facts but... At any rate, some links. Some may not necessarily be RS upon closer inspection, but this is just a list so I don't lose these.

To be added as I come across them. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Rebel Legion

The Rebel Legion → Rebel Legion

Per WP:THE. Though it appears that the group's "official" name has the definite article (per their about page), from what I have seen, the group is typically referred to without the definite article or the definite article is often lowercased, the logo itself omits the definite article. The definite article does not seem necessary to the article title. It seems like an uncontroversial move, but fixing an ill-advised move is always a mess. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 13:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable and not likely to be controversial to me per WP:THE and as well. Pinging @MrTexas and Leroni Verderoc: just as a courtesy for additional input. If neither they nor nobody else posts in a reasonable amount of time (a week perhaps?) that they are opposed to this, then I think it's OK to go ahead and do it; otherwise, there's always WP:RM#CM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with this. "Rebel Legion" was the original page that was deleted a couple of years ago so I think I added "The" because it wouldnt let me when I made the page.MrTexas (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrTexas: Sometimes when you're not being allowed to create an article under a certain name, it's because an article with the same name has been previously deleted and an administrator felt that the name needed to be protected. This is done for a variety of reasons as explained in WP:SALT, but one is to prevent the pointless recreation of previously deleted articles without making any attempt to address the reasons they were deleted in the first place. If you're faced with this situation again, I suggest taking a look at Special:Log and searching for the article's name to see if it has been previously deleted as explained in Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. If you feel you can fix a previously deleted article and address the problems that led to its deletion, then you can always request it's undeletion as explained in WP:REFUND or request a deletion review as explained in WP:DRV. Simply recreating the article under a different name is typically not the best thing to do because it can be seen as trying to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion process if done intentionally and problematic even if done unintentionally. @TenTonParasol: Based upon MrTexas's post, I found this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebel Legion. The reason MrTexas couldn't re-create the page was that the name was salted to prevent the article from being re-created. The issues discussed in the AfD seem to have been addressed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rebel Legion, but since the name "Rebel Legion" is still protected, administrator assistance is needed to unprotect the name and for a possible history merge of some kind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about this at WP:AN#Question about a recreated article and the protection on the name "Rebel Legion" was removed by Jo-Jo Eumerus, so the article can be moved now if that's what the consensus turns out to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for checking it out. And thank you to Hobit for moving the page. One less thing to worry about. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]