Talk:General of the Cross (2014)

This is the discussion page for General of the Cross (2014). Here, you may discuss improving the article. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Move to "General of the Cross (2014)"

The Wikia Editor and I discussed this over on my talk page. I know that this page corresponds to the character whereas Generals of the Cross currently corresponds to the rank. However, it is more proper that the title of the article for the rank itself be singular. Pluralizing it for the sake of disambiguation is a poor method; deviating from grammatical convention to disambiguate between articles is disorganized. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with our other cases, such as Mentor (2000) and the rank of Mentor. I therefore propose that this be moved to General of the Cross (2014). I would enact the move immediately except that I cannot move "Generals of the Cross" to the singular "General of the Cross" without administrative assistance due to this article already existing. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:08, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this page was created to reference both the title and the one, unidentified, individual who hold it (which it does). I'm not entirely sure why "Generals of the Cross" was created in the first place, since as you pointed out, it isn't consistent with our existing disambiguation practices. We'd be better off simply deleting the "Generals" article, as it serves no purposes beyond duplicating text found here. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:32, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Although it's true that we currently only know of one individual who holds the rank, the fact still remains that the rank and the individual are two seperate things. I'm pretty sure that this discussion wouldn't even be happening if we at least knew the name of the individual, but the fact that we don't doesn't and shouldn't negate our standard practices with matters such as these. Back when the Black Cross was introduced, we created articles to seperate the character and the rank. Admittedly, we created the articles as "Black Cross" for the character and "Black Crosses" for the rank, but this was corrected once his name was revealed. I agree with Sol Pacificus that we should be consistent with grammatical convention and move the pages. The Wikia Editor (talk) 17:03, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused what you mean Jasca when you say that this article was created in reference to both the title and the individual, when the other article is clearly created for the individual. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:38, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

There is only one individual known to hold this rank, and he (or she) is currently unidentified - we know absolutely nothing about this individual besides the fact that they hold this title - and because we know so very little about the individual in question, it makes no practical sense to split the articles. (They haven’t even made an appearance; they have only been off-handedly mentioned by another individual.) In the cited example of the Black Cross, we at least had a reasonable amount of content to write about that specific individual to warrant separating the article, but in this situation, we do not.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say: ‘’” when the other article [[[Generals of the Cross]]] is clearly created for the individual,”’’ because I didn’t say that it was.

Once we know a bit more about the individual who holds the title, or about the title’s responsibilities independent of the one title-holder’s role, it’ll be worth splitting the article (assuming we don’t simply redirect to a pre-existing character page), but at this stage it is not. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:11, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but I still don't think it's correct to list the character and the rank as though they're one and the same when they're not. We lack a lot of information, I get that, but that doesn't mean we should ignore our standard practices because of it. You already seem to agree that the article will inevitably be corrected once the individual's name is revealed, but why not spare the waiting and move it now? We know that this individual reviewed Gramática's inquiries regarding the search for the Observatory, that is something that seperates them from their rank, I think that as long as we know something that the individual did, regardless of how minor, is enough to justify seperate articles. The Wikia Editor (talk) 12:09, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

"I’m not sure what you mean when you say: 'when the other article [[[Generals of the Cross]]] is clearly created for the individual,' because I didn’t say that it was."

Okay, let me rewrite what I wrote with quotation marks:

I'm a little confused what you mean Jasca when you say that "this article was created in reference to both the title and the individual", when the other article is clearly created for the individual.

Which is in reference to this: "Actually, this page was created to reference both the title and the one, unidentified, individual who hold it." Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 10:57, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I recognize my fail here. I kept operating under the mistaken belief this was "Generals of the Cross" and the other "General of the Cross" even after you pointed this out. I don't know why I still didn't take note. Your original statement makes much more sense now. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 11:06, April 20, 2017 (UTC)