| abstract
| - This page is a log of a conversation regarding fan confusion over Mandalore the Ultimate.
#wookieepedia-inquisitorius [17:24] [INFO] Channel view for “#wookieepedia-inquisitorius” opened. -->| YOU (Grey-man) have joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius =-= Topic for #wookieepedia-inquisitorius is “"We is teh evil!" - Mount Sorrow Headquarters - "All your noms are belong to us!" | All gruntwork to be designated for Toprawa and Ralltiir, n00b Inq” =-= Topic for #wookieepedia-inquisitorius was set by Graestan on April-12-08 11:38:47 PM =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o Grey-man by Nuku-Nuku Hey I've been summoned? [17:25] Yes, actually. I want to figure out what we should do with the Mandalore article. [17:26] Now, I can't think of anything offhand to indicate either reasoning. It's almost as though stating either would be speculation. [17:27] If there's no sign they're the same, split it. If it's canonically stated they're the same, keep it as is. If there's hints and such, or OOU but non-canonical comments that would suggest that link might be made canonical in the future, then don't say they're the same in the biography, just that they might be. [17:28] I didn't, I just fixed the Inq objections from the Inq meeting my mistake for :P Yeah...when the Handbook came out, I actually pointed it out to Imp. Evidently he didn't do anything with it. Would it lose its ability, word-count-wise, to make FA again if that information was moved, and perhaps a meatier addition to the BtS brought in about it? [17:29] The Handbook is left ambiguous, and the "Republic officials" that have their "theories" don't say anything, really...it's all left "Well, one group thinks this, but without evidence" eh Grae: It's literally just two paragraphs that have the TOTJ info. It would easily hit the mark even if that were split off. [17:30] If it comes out that it is canon that there is some unknown Mandalore that we don't know about, then I'm all for splitting the article up but, meh I'm looking in the Handbook for the exact wording. [17:31] sure I believe I actually pretty much put it in the BtS, but changed a word or two so as not be copy it exactly Hm, it's left entirely ambiguous. yes that's my point in writing the BtS as I did [17:32] Is there any hint that they are the same? Well, the thing with the BTS is that the entire article up to that point says they /are/ the same...and then the last paragraph says "Well, maybe not." [17:33] As it is, the only canonical statement we have regarding it is that it's unknown. Barring /any/ sort of hint that it's the same one, IU, OOU, or otherwise, I'd split it. I think it was KOTOR I that hinted at it, to be honest [17:34] but I'm no expert on that game anymore But if there is so much as /some/ hint, I'd be fine with keeping it but never declaring they're the same, and keeping the Handbook info in the main article body. The two paragraphs could be reworded to reflect this... give a bit of a background for the character, stating that Mandalore the Indomitable was killed, and a new Mandalore took up his helmet, but not specifying in our own wording. Should we consult Red? Why? I think it was KOTOR I that hinted at it, to be honest [17:35] Game dialogue files. I can search the dialogue. [17:37] "I once had a holodisc that showed Mandalore doing the three-step jiggy with a rancor beast. Marvelous technology we have." -->| Toprawa (n=chatzill@156-56-154-86.dhcp-bl.indiana.edu) has joined #wookieepedia-inquisitorius :P Would it rectify the situation to reword to paragraphs to have info about the last known Mandalore, etc., and change the 1st appearance to a possible one? Again, no direct linking/ If there's no hint that they're the same, I'd like it split off entirely. [17:38] ? And I can't find anything in the files searching for "Mandalore". Who's the same as who now? The new Mandalore from TOTJ and Mandalore the Ultimate. Another article created, and maybe the paragraphs reduced to something short about the old Mandalore? [17:39] =-= Mode #wookieepedia-inquisitorius +o Toprawa by Graestan Hey, Tope. good afternoon A background, per se? Would that be alright? Hold on, I'm looking in the TSL files. [17:40] Dammit, Canderous, stop hogging all the searches for "Mandalore". >:( [17:41] Hm, Grey, this could use some more KOTOR II info, it seems. [17:42] I just found this: "The last months before Dxun fell, the old Mandalore knew that Revan and the Republic were gaining the upper hand. He ordered our best engineers to hide caches of weapons and munitions throughout the moon, safely away from the enemies' hands." [17:43] Well, I'd like to sort your objection out first, before I go adding more info :P Well, that just makes things more confusing! "No, this is the helmet of the old Mandalore, the same one he wore in the Exar Kun war, and many wars before that." I know, I'm just making notes as I go through this. Anyway, Grae's suggestion... What would we say about the old Mandalore, then? [17:44] So, does KOTOR II suggest they are the same? Not that I can see. That quote is the only thing close, but like I said, it just makes things more confusing. the first quote seems to, and the second quote is speaking more of the title Mandalore as a whole, i think [17:45] The old Mandalore = the previous Mandalore, but they also err in saying the previous Mandalore = the Mandalore before that They have a habit of talking about Mandalore as the title, and it comes of as sounding like the person... Revelation has some hints of that as well 9_9 OK, my suggestion: at least in my opinion, anyways [17:46] "Mandalore the Ultimate thus established the inhospitable moon as the clans' new forward base of operations, and from there recalled the disparate clans.[1] " [17:47] Split Taung Mandalore off entirely. Mention in the body of Ultimate how some Republic guys thought he was the same. Find a source for people thinking they're the same, put that in the BTS and explain the Handbook thing, though change it a bit from how it is now so it doesn't sound like it's assumed they are the same. =-= GreenTentacle is now known as GT|away [17:48] We could still give a bit more explanation on Taung Mandalore, then, as long as we specify that people from the Republic believed them to be the same? [17:49] Creating a new article, also, of course. Actually, reading the Handbook again, it doesn't say anyone thought he was the same. [17:50] Just that they were entirely unsure. Yeah, I'd keep Taung Mandalore info out entirely, except as context and in reference to this bit. [17:52] eh, I'll doublecheck the sources and appearances before commiting to anything either way it's not like the article is waiting to be queued Not a bad idea. Imp certainly may not have caught everything in his initial run. [17:53] OK. Now someone bloody review Lira. :P actually, the NEC confirms they are the same It does? * Grey-man will type it out [17:55] No need, I see it. "The Mandalorian Crusaders had gained strength during the Sith War, but their leader Mandalore had died on the jungle moon of Dxun. Following tradition, a new solider took up the name and identiy of Mandalore, and this warrior led his 'Neo-Crusaders' to triumphs that would be forever celebrated in the refrains of Mandalore skirmish songs." Sweet beans! Well, then...keep them as one article, but I have two suggestions: that's from the title "The Mandalore Wars - 3995 - 3961 BBY" Add the thing about Republic officials to the main body. And rejigger the BTS paragraph. [17:56] The last sentence is a bit...OR-ish. And this needs a source: "since caused some confusion and speculation among readers" well, we are readers, no? :P Then source this chatlog. :P [[Wookieepedia:IRC]] [17:57] I will create a subpage if you want, and source it :P
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)