|
Delete Proposal
So yeah, this character is mentioned only in once conversation and we barely have enough information to warrent an article. I feel there isn't enough information here to warrant a full article. There was enough information on the Migrant Fleet page IMO. Lancer1289 20:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I did consider putting more detail there as, as you say she's just a background character (which btw, there's a specific category for) but it seemed a little cumbersome and out of place to put the details in the "Notable Vessels" subsection of the migrant fleet article. More-so since her backstory had nothing directly to do with the Selani specifically and I don't think there's anywhere else where it might belong. Incidentally what was already there wasn't even totally accurate; she wasn't convicted of treason, only charged before later being posthumously pardoned. Blind Wolf 20:57, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Not voting yea or nea, just throwing this out there: Blind Wolf, you say that the previous information "wasn't even totally accurate; she wasn't convicted of treason, only charged before later being posthumously pardoned." Well, funny thing about that: Before you can be pardoned, you have to be convicted. People don't get pardons unless they've been convicted. If they have been charged but not convicted, the charges are simply dropped or dismissed. SpartHawg948 21:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but I'm fairly certain Tali specifically says she wasn't convicted. Make of that what you will. Blind Wolf 21:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Another perfect example of why dialogue is not the most reliable source. Tali contradicts herself within the brief span of one sentence by stating that Amora'Vanya was not convicted, but was pardoned, which would necessitate her being convicted. Who knows... she could have been convicted in absentia or something. SpartHawg948 21:51, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine the writers probably meant to say she was absolved or acquitted, but if you're feeling particularly literal minded you can always pretend that Tali just has some gaps in her English vocabulary, or that the quarian word for pardoned means the same thing as absolved, acquitted, forgiven and tennis shoe. ;) Blind Wolf 21:59, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Absolved, maybe, but I don't really see acquitted as an option. After all, if the defendant in an active case dies, does the trial still go on? No, it gets dismissed. Given what we know of inter-species communications, courtesy of the Codex, gaps in Tali's English isn't likely to be an option either, and though mistranslation is more likely, it still seems fairly unlikely, again as per the Codex. If anything, the fault is likely with Tali's memory. And, since it is sci-fi and suspension of disbelief does apply, we do have to take it literally, as opposed to interpreting what the writers may or may not have meant. SpartHawg948 22:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, leaving aside for a second the fact that I was being ever-so-slightly facetious, all of that assumes the specifics of quarian legal terminology have any direct translation or 100% direct equivalence to Earth terms. Who's to say that in their system they can or cannot continue to convict someone after death? It's never directly stated either way, but I suppose you could take Tali's version of events as being implicit. It's all supposition anyway and it's really not worth dwelling over what amounts to such a minor oversight by the dialogue writer. Blind Wolf 22:21, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the issue of unknowns in the quarian legal system, we are still faced with the fact that, per the game, what Tali said was "pardon". And you can't pardon without a conviction. There is literally nothing speculative about that, though there is speculation in any attempt to reconcile it as mistranslation or poor word choice, and writers intent is not a viable argument without devconfirmation. Pretty much the only way to reconcile it is to remember that we do have devconfirmation stating that characters just plain get things wrong, or speak of things thy really don't know as much about as they think they do, which can at times lead to dialogue of questionable veracity. And this does appear to be one of those cases. SpartHawg948 22:37, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- You can't just take two contradictory statements in the same sentence and choose which one part is "right." The only way to handle it is more or less as it appears now; the statement presented as it was in dialogue and a note in trivia pointing out the apparent contradiction. Blind Wolf 00:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why that is exactly what I did! Funny how that works out, isn't it? I assumed nothing, nor did I choose which part was right. SpartHawg948 06:11, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the issue of unknowns in the quarian legal system, we are still faced with the fact that, per the game, what Tali said was "pardon". And you can't pardon without a conviction. There is literally nothing speculative about that, though there is speculation in any attempt to reconcile it as mistranslation or poor word choice, and writers intent is not a viable argument without devconfirmation. Pretty much the only way to reconcile it is to remember that we do have devconfirmation stating that characters just plain get things wrong, or speak of things thy really don't know as much about as they think they do, which can at times lead to dialogue of questionable veracity. And this does appear to be one of those cases. SpartHawg948 22:37, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, leaving aside for a second the fact that I was being ever-so-slightly facetious, all of that assumes the specifics of quarian legal terminology have any direct translation or 100% direct equivalence to Earth terms. Who's to say that in their system they can or cannot continue to convict someone after death? It's never directly stated either way, but I suppose you could take Tali's version of events as being implicit. It's all supposition anyway and it's really not worth dwelling over what amounts to such a minor oversight by the dialogue writer. Blind Wolf 22:21, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Absolved, maybe, but I don't really see acquitted as an option. After all, if the defendant in an active case dies, does the trial still go on? No, it gets dismissed. Given what we know of inter-species communications, courtesy of the Codex, gaps in Tali's English isn't likely to be an option either, and though mistranslation is more likely, it still seems fairly unlikely, again as per the Codex. If anything, the fault is likely with Tali's memory. And, since it is sci-fi and suspension of disbelief does apply, we do have to take it literally, as opposed to interpreting what the writers may or may not have meant. SpartHawg948 22:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine the writers probably meant to say she was absolved or acquitted, but if you're feeling particularly literal minded you can always pretend that Tali just has some gaps in her English vocabulary, or that the quarian word for pardoned means the same thing as absolved, acquitted, forgiven and tennis shoe. ;) Blind Wolf 21:59, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Another perfect example of why dialogue is not the most reliable source. Tali contradicts herself within the brief span of one sentence by stating that Amora'Vanya was not convicted, but was pardoned, which would necessitate her being convicted. Who knows... she could have been convicted in absentia or something. SpartHawg948 21:51, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but I'm fairly certain Tali specifically says she wasn't convicted. Make of that what you will. Blind Wolf 21:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Not voting yea or nea, just throwing this out there: Blind Wolf, you say that the previous information "wasn't even totally accurate; she wasn't convicted of treason, only charged before later being posthumously pardoned." Well, funny thing about that: Before you can be pardoned, you have to be convicted. People don't get pardons unless they've been convicted. If they have been charged but not convicted, the charges are simply dropped or dismissed. SpartHawg948 21:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure if this information needs its own page, but the story itself need to be mentioned in full one either the quarian or Migrant Fleet articles. --silverstrike 21:13, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but experience has taught me on this wiki that if I had done that, then someone would decide it's not relevant to that article and hit undo. Plus I noticed a few background (i.e. mentioned bot not portrayed) characters from the books that have their own article that are not much more substantial than this, so it seemed the wiser choice.Blind Wolf 21:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Definitely doesn't warrant an article. I think the material is relevant though, and would support a merge to quarian, under the Law and Defense section. This is a good example of the quarian legal system in action. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about all that. I'm on the fence about deletion, but would oppose a merger, simply because I really don't see anything here suitable for the quarian article, not in the Law and Defense or any other section. It really isn't an example of the quarian legal system in action, because all we have as far as the legal system is two seemingly contradictory comments from Tali. What is it you were thinking would be suitable for merging? SpartHawg948 22:30, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- It's an example of a quarian committing a crime on the level of treason, whether intentional or not, and that quarian facing punishment. But if a merger is out of the question, I'd opt for deletion. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:42, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- But don't we already have at least one example of just that? An example we've had since July of 2008? One that is less ambiguous than this one? (After all, we don't even really know what happened to her. Apparently, if Tali's comments are taken as absolute fact, overlooking the apparent contradiction, she was pardoned without being convicted) SpartHawg948 22:46, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Forgot about him. In my defense, I haven't read Ascension. Seeing as we already have a better example then, I'll support the deletion proposal. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Wherever the information goes, it should go somewhere as it's a part of quarian history. As I said before, the reason I created a new article because I couldn't find a suitable place to put it where it wouldn't be extraneous and as others have agreed, it is a valid piece of information. Blind Wolf 00:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Forgot about him. In my defense, I haven't read Ascension. Seeing as we already have a better example then, I'll support the deletion proposal. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- But don't we already have at least one example of just that? An example we've had since July of 2008? One that is less ambiguous than this one? (After all, we don't even really know what happened to her. Apparently, if Tali's comments are taken as absolute fact, overlooking the apparent contradiction, she was pardoned without being convicted) SpartHawg948 22:46, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
- It's an example of a quarian committing a crime on the level of treason, whether intentional or not, and that quarian facing punishment. But if a merger is out of the question, I'd opt for deletion. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:42, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
I vote mention it elsewhere. Like in the article reguarding Tali's loyalty mission perhaps?--146.245.160.179 16:06, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
- So... looks like it's 2 votes in favor of deletion, one vote opposed, and one vote for "mention it elsewhere". Pretty sure (due to the inclusion of "elsewhere") that this counts as support for deletion. Just to err on the side of caution though, as this one could be construed as within the margin of error, I'll cast a quick vote to delete. So now it's 3-1-1. Or maybe 4-1. Or 3-2. Any which way, the delete proposal passes. SpartHawg948 09:50, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'm disputing the decision and I don't know if this is the right place to suggest this, but I wonder if it would be worthwhile to create a "minor characters" article (or similar) that would serve to record characters that don't warrant an article of their own. Mostly characters only mentioned in passing, historical figures and perhaps certain unnamed characters. I just noticed that there isn't an article for the Nakmor Ambassador on Tuchanka and wonder if he and the clan ancestor would also fit into that category. That Asari Matriarch who's writings you have to find in ME1 might also qualify and I'm sure a trawl through the codex entries should throw up a few more candidates and enough material to make such an article viable. Opinions? Blind Wolf 02:18, September 30, 2010 (UTC)