Talk:Rebel Legion: Difference between revisions
→Links of potential usefulness: add one |
→Proposed move to Rebel Legion: new section |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
To be added as I come across them. ~Cheers, [[User:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Ten</span>]][[User talk:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:MediumSeaGreen;">Ton</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TenTonParasol|<span style="color:LightGreen;">Parasol</span>]] 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
To be added as I come across them. ~Cheers, [[User:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Ten</span>]][[User talk:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:MediumSeaGreen;">Ton</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TenTonParasol|<span style="color:LightGreen;">Parasol</span>]] 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
== 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 ([http://newsite.rebellegion.com/who-we-are/ 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, [[User:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Ten</span>]][[User talk:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:MediumSeaGreen;">Ton</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TenTonParasol|<span style="color:LightGreen;">Parasol</span>]] 13:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:13, 17 August 2016
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Star Wars Unassessed | |||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
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)
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)
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.
- Wired.com
- io9
- Nerdist
- South China Morning Post
- Omaha World-Herald
- Michigan Live
- MPR News
- The Sacramento Bee
- Ottawa Citizen
- Star Tribune, has a good mention about non-profit
- Official Star Wars YouTube, video on costuming groups, second video
- Sydney Morning Herald, small mention about founding
To be added as I come across them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
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, TenTonParasol 13:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)