This is the talk page for the article "Mission to Yavin 4."

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.


Mission to Yavin 4 is within the scope of WookieeProject The Old Republic, an attempt to build comprehensive and detailed articles with topics originating in or related to the various media from Star Wars: The Old Republic, including the MMORPG, comics and novels.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice or visit our project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Mission to Yavin 4 is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wookieepedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 5, 2010 Featured article candidate Success
May 22, 2010 Featured article
March 4, 2012 Featured article review Kept
April 22, 2012 Featured article
Current status: Featured article


Why do we need a separate article for every single event in Eison Gynt's life? Why can't this information simply be covered by the articles Naga Sadow's tomb, Barel Ovair and Eison Gynt? --Imperialles 20:06, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Because it's a separate event. Besides, they weren't the only ones involved. There were also plenty of Massassi warriors. It was a specific mission, so it deserves a specific article. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 20:09, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • I assumed so that they could be found via categories or through collected list pages like the Lightsaber duel article. I started creating because it was requested in the Eison Gynt and Barel Ovair GANs. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 20:10, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
      • Dinner at the Lars Homestead was also a separate event, involving several people. It was a specific meal, so it deserves a specific article. The logic doesn't quite hold up. Those objections to your GANs had nothing to do with the actual GAN rules, which makes them completely invalid. --Imperialles 20:15, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay. Although I could see where they were coming from in that the mission and duel articles are useful for presenting information in a particular format from a particular point of view, or else one could go to the other extreme where you have no event articles and instead cover events on character and story arc articles. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 20:19, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • But this is an actual mission. An actual event, with an actual purpose. By your line of thought, hell, the Duel on Ambria doesn't deserve an article, because it could technically be covered by the character articles of those involved. But if you really think this doesn't deserve an article, then take it to a TC, and we'll see what the community thinks. And yes, it was a valid objection, as it falls under the article being fully comprehensive. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 20:20, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
          • You misunderstand me. I was pointing out the tendency to make meaningless play-by-play articles on exceedingly minor events (such as this one), not suggesting we not cover events at all. I think that we need to establish some notability criteria, however. Also, the existence of other articles is not a valid objection to the detail presented in an article (rule 1, which I assume you're referring to). --Imperialles 20:31, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
            • It seems you misunderstand me as well, do allow me to try again. I was objecting to the existence of this article based on underlinking: there was no link in Gynt's article for an event that should be linked—that falls under linking/comprehensiveness. However, that would have placed a redlink in Gynt's intro, which is not allowed, so this mission article needed to be created. And again, if you really feel that such "minor events" don't deserve articles, then make a CT for it, and let the community decide. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 20:36, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
              • Let me first of all thank you for informing me of this site's community input forums. There is a reason why I haven't pursued either of those options. I am merely debating, promoting discussion, which I don't think is ever a bad thing (as long as it falls within the talk page rules). Secondly, the only rule that applies to linking is #4, which forces users to follow the linking conventions established in a Mofference long ago. Your opinion of what should have an article or not has zero relevance. Furthermore, there is absolutely no rule demanding "comprehensiveness". --Imperialles 20:47, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
                • You are welcome for the information. And in reply: before I became an AC, I received the same objection from ACs on several of my nominations. It is not your decision to unilaterally declare what does or doesn't warrant an objection: linking should be complete throughout the article, and if a link for an event is missing, then it must be added. And if that means there is a redlink in the intro, then the article must be created (per Rule 8). Furthermore, I suggest that you read Rule number 9, and I must ask that you please acquaint yourself with all of the GAN rules before you begin to make any further rash statements about rules that do indeed exist. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 20:57, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
                  • You're right, it's not my decision. The rules themselves are clear enough; no interpretation is needed from my part. If the redlink in the intro was present prior to your objection, then rule 8 would indeed cover it. That, however, is not the case if the objecting person demands the creation of said redlink. Rule number 9 does contain the word "comprehensive", true, but makes absolutely no indication that the concept applies to linking. In fact, considering the first part of the rule, "comprehensive detail" seems to refer to the amount of information found in the article. Finally, I'm sorry other ACs raised this particular objection to you in the past, but their error in no way validates yours. I believe we have moved quite a bit off topic, though. --Imperialles 21:13, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
                    • That is your interpretation of those rules; I retain my own. Furthermore, even as an Admin and a respected user, you do not unilaterally overrule the AC. If you don't agree with that interpretation or think that that warrants an objection, then bring up a motion to state that it doesn't. For now, that is how the AC has been interpreting the rules for a long time, and until there has been a motion to overturn it, then you have no right to declare the objection invalid—the right to strike invalid objections on the GAN belongs to the AC alone. But indeed, it seems we have deviated quite a ways off-topic. I appreciate the discussion and the debate; and I hope that we as a community can make good decisions regarding these topics in the future. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 21:23, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
                      • For the record, I didn't actually overrule anyone. I can appreciate your interpretation, but I reserve the right to point out its flaws. Regardless, thank you for an entertaining debate, even though it went in a slightly different direction than I had originally planned. --Imperialles 21:28, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.