AlphaEdit

What is the source for alpha being an ARC captain? In obsession, his last appearance, he's a regular ARC with blue armor. --Xilentshadow900 14:28, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• While he is seen wearing blue armor, the picture shows him as an ARC captain. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:30, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd call it Artistic Licence. Karen Traviss has always said that Alpha is a true ARC.--Xilentshadow900 14:33, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Yet, he is called a captain, so therefore he has the red armor of a captain. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:34, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Where was he called a captain?--Xilentshadow900 14:34, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I've seen it in plenty of places. But, just because he's portrayed as a standard ARC in the comics doesn't mean he is a standard ARC. Comic screw things up a lot. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:40, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • And another thing: Why would they put a standard ARC in charge of clone commander training? It would be only logical to put an ARC captain in charge of it. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:41, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Not necessarily. As said by Karen Traviss and Ryan Kaufman, ARC captains weren't true ARCs, as the true ARCs worked alone. And Alpha wasn't in many places besides the comics, because in fact, he was Created in the comics. And in the comics, he's always been an ARC. Either way, I've just asked Karen Traviss. It's probably just a case of Artistic Licence.--Xilentshadow900 14:45, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Then why has he been called a captain? Admiral J. Nebulax 14:47, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • But where has he been called a captain? "Plenty of places" isn't real specific.--Xilentshadow900 14:48, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • Listen, just do whatever you want with it. I don't have the names of the sources where I saw it now. If I still did, I would have posted them by now. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:52, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • I'll edit it, but if anything comes up about him being a captain, I'll put it back.--Xilentshadow900 14:55, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                      • At least leave the picture in. Just change it's caption. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:56, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, that makes sense. Sorry... Whoever said that ARCs didn't get phase II armor was wrong, I just realized.--Xilentshadow900 15:02, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't know if there's a source for this, but I was just surfing the Internet, and I found something: On one site, it says that when he returned to Kamino for the clone commander training, "He was promoted to Captain...". Can anyone confirm/deny this? Admiral J. Nebulax 15:04, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Which site was it? I can probably figure it out from there.--Xilentshadow900 15:06, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • It was from an AOL site, but all the other information was true, as I checked it myself. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:09, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I guess the best thing to do is to wait for Karen Traviss's response.--Xilentshadow900 15:21, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, it should let us know whether or not he was a captain, thus ending this debate. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:23, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • More of a discussion, really...--Xilentshadow900 15:38, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Good point. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:52, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Well then, perhaps not... "No idea, but if he was, Ordo wouldn't have taken any notice of him."--Xilentshadow900 17:40, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Was that the response? Admiral J. Nebulax 17:43, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Yeah, I was a bit surprised. I thought she knew everything about every clone ever...--Xilentshadow900 17:45, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • Hmm, interesting... Admiral J. Nebulax 17:45, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What's left?Edit

This article contains no information beyond the ARC trooper article. Is there more information beyond their uniform color and roles as squad leaders available? --SparqMan 22:40, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• The only time they've ever been seen anywhere, and correct me if I'm wrong, is in the Clone Wars cartoon. Not much else info.--Xilentshadow900 23:26, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe they appeared somewhere else. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:31, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, the only other place a red ARC can be seen is in the Karen Traviss short story Omega Squad: Targets. Captain Ordo the Null. --AdmThrawn 01:16, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • So then this just duplicates ARC trooper? If so, a redirect is in order. --SparqMan 06:54, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • They're different. Besides, we're going to see more of them in Triple zero.--Xilentshadow900 11:32, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • As I said on the Null ARC captain Talk page, there is no need for any redirects. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:06, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

MergingEdit

Are you kidding me? There is no reason for a merge. They were different from the standard ARCs. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• They were officer ARCs. What's the big deal? There is no reason for this to have its own article. In fact, there is nothing to merge. It is simply redundant. --SparqMan 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They're not different enough to get their own article, Jack. Red stripes aren't enough. --AdmThrawn 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just red stripes? Admiral J. Nebulax 00:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's like saying the clone commander article should be merged with the clone trooper article. Or maybe we should merge the ARC trooper article with the clone trooper article. Nope, keep it as is.--Xilentshadow900 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly. This merge is completely unnecissary, even if the only difference was coloring and ranks. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, not exactly. That is not the same at all. ARCs are significantly different enough from Clone troopers to deserve their own article. Take a look at a military encyclopedia and you will not find individual articles for something like "Navy SEAL commander". Can you give a reason for this to stand apart? --SparqMan 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay: They were captains. Not all ARCs were captains. And if you don't think this is good enough, that's like saying that clone trooper commander should be merged into clone trooper, because "commander" is a rank, like captain. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, those are stringently different. Clone commanders were designed for their specialized roles, received unique training, and fulfilled different combat and organizational roles. Further, a wealth of information is available on them and their role was significant beyond the scope of standard clone troopers. The same cannot be said of ARC captains. --SparqMan 01:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • ARC captains were designed for their specialized roles, received unique training, and fulfilled different combat and organizational roles.--Xilentshadow900 11:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • SparqMan, I respect you, but the idea of a merge for this page is wrong. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • We also have pages for clone trooper lieutenants and clone trooper captains. Same thing. This page doesn't need a merge - Kwenn 20:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Watch out, SparqMan might end up merging them into clone trooper. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Again, that's incorrect. Clone trooper lieutenant redirects to the rank of Lieutenant. Kwenn, you're right that this page does not need a merge, but that's because its content is redundant. So you guys are in favor of me creating an article for "Imperial Starfleet Lieutenant" that says something along the lines of "Imperial Navy Lieutenants were officers in the Imperial Navy. They wore gray uniforms and had special training to led those below them."? Of course they have training to led—that's what an officer does! The point is that ARCs and ARC Captains are one in the same and there is no information to suggest otherwise. Again: What purpose is served by leaving this out in the wind? --SparqMan 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • Then by that reasoning, what's the point of having a Lieutenant article? "Lieutenant was a military rank held by an officer who was designated to take command in the absence of a superior". Isn't that just as obvious? Or perhaps we should also get rid of General (and thus Jedi General), Major, Commander...since they're all just officers. I don't see what's wrong with having pages for various ranks - and there is still room for additional info, for one, a list of notable holders of that rank. If we're trying to create as complete an encyclopedia as we can, we should make these distinctions - Kwenn 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, Lieutenant is not so obvious because it is a term used commonly, whereas an article that essentially says "ARC captains were ARC troopers that led other ARC troopers with leadership techniques" is a bit of a "no duh" moment. I agree that we should have Captain, which we do, and ARC trooper, which we do. Having a complete encyclopedia does not necessarily mean having an article for every word we see. Should we have a distinct article for Executor's bridge? --SparqMan 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Nope, because that's a completely different area. A specific rank and a section of a starship aren't the same. And neither are ARC Troopers and ARC Trooper Captains. And perhaps we could also do away with Grand Moff, since they're just Moffs with command of a larger area? - Kwenn 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That is different too. Grand Moffs are explained and established...what information have we been given on ARC captains? Much of this article is pure conjecture or anecdotal. "They were the most skilled and feared branch" "They were even fewer in the limited ranks" "ARC trooper captains often focused on infiltration, sabotage, and surprise attacks." And what of encyclopedic style: a short entry on everything is not as useful as some longer entries where possible. I'm really trying to understand the value of this page. --SparqMan 19:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Here's what seperates an ARC captain from your standard blue lieutenant ARC: Red stripes, a red pauldron, and a red skirt. Slightly tweaked training that makes them more apt at leading multiple men. That's. It. --AdmThrawn 19:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
          • And that's more info than we have on many of our pages - Kwenn 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Touché. --AdmThrawn 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, but some of those pages cannot be folded into other articles, but many can, and I suspect will. Again, help me see the value of this page. --SparqMan 20:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • SparqMan, if this article has to be merged (according to you), then why not merge all of the smaller articles? Because if you're not, this article isn't as well. It's either all or none. You choose. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Small" isn't what matters, relevance is. Yes, "Jet trooper" and "Jet trooper captain" should be merged. No, "434 blaster pistol" and "Blaster pistol" should not be merged. You can't make a "slippery slope" debate out of this, because it works the other way: if this stays, one could argue that we need to have TIE Fighter lieutenant and X-wing commander, etc. There are a good number of articles that should be merged into their home articles, but not all should. That's why we have discussions. So please, explain to me why this article is important independent of ARC troopers. --SparqMan 22:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • They were trained differently, and sported different color markings than the standard ARC troopers. I fail to see why you don't realize this. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I fail to see why you think that warrants a separate article. --AdmThrawn 02:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, then, it appears that you haven't been listening. If they were trained to be captains—something standard ARCs weren't trained for—and held the rank of captain, they are different from the standard ARC troopers. You said it yourself. But what you fail to see is that they were different. That's very similar to the reason why Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader weren't merged. So, since they were the same person, yet different, it is the same for ARC captains and ARC troopers. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You haven't addressed any of the concerns listed above. Why should ARC captain exist and not "Rogue Squadron lieutenant"? The reason is that an ARC captain was the same rank as a non-ARC captain. A GAR lieutenant would answer to both, and both would answer to a GAR general. He could command non-ARC units—he was a captain who happened to be an ARC, not vice versa. --147.9.172.72 13:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wrong. An ARC captain was a trooper trained as an ARC and a captain. And there is absolutely no need for "Rogue Squadron lieutenant" or any other stupid term like that, because they were not trained to specifically be in Rogue Squadron. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay. I have a suggestion. Instead of dragging out this debate over a long period of time, we can merge this page into Advanced Recon Commando—on one condition that I hope everyone will agree on. Take all the information from this page and add it into a section on the ARC page, pictures and all. See: Talk:ARC trooper captain/Temp. And then the rest of the article would follow. Comments? Admiral J. Nebulax 14:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a good start, although some of that information is conjecture, as far as I know. These lines require a source or are redundant compared against the article as a whole:
    • "They were the most skilled and feared branch of the Grand Army of the Republic, besides the ARCs themselves." - Where are they described as a branch apart from the ARCs?
    • "They were even fewer in the limited ranks of ARC troopers, seeing as only the best could lead the ARCs." - Obviously officers are better than non-officers and a hierarchy requires fewer at the top than at the bottom.
    • "ARC trooper captains often focused on infiltration, sabotage, and surprise attacks." Isn't that what ARCs did in general?
    • "Their armor was similar to the standard ARC trooper, and the only difference being red stripes and coloring on their facemasks and upper armor" - Instead of this, we should note in the equipment section that the ARCs used the original rank-color striping method.
  • So I guess my point, once again, is what remains after that happens? Do you just want the images integrated? --SparqMan 14:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, even if some of the text is taken out or replaced, there is still information on the ARC captains left. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, I'll move it over and if it gets chisled down over time so be it and if we get more info we'll expand. --SparqMan 15:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The ARC Captain deserves its own article for ONE reason. ARC captains were not true ARCs. Karen Traviss has said that ARC Captains are a branch apart, seeing as they don't work alone. In truth, they aren't really ARCs, but instead clone troopers qualified for leading ARCs.--Xilentshadow900 17:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • To clarify: Karen Traviss has said that true ARCs work alone and are independant, save for special occasions.--Xilentshadow900 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So, to clarify: You just disproved yourself. We've seen ARCs work together on a few occassions and have proof in the former of Alpha-77 that they were ARCs and captains, not just captains qualified to lead ARCs. --SparqMan 19:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, you just don't get it: ARC captains aren't true ARCs. That alone means there should be two different articles.--Xilentshadow900 19:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Xilentshadow, please. They are true ARCs. What else would the "ARC" stand for? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I get what you're saying, but it is inaccurate. Alpha-77 is both an ARC and a captain. Can you post links to these Traviss comments? And keep in mind that non-LFL employee statements about IU information in an unlicensed format is considered unofficial until "canonized". --SparqMan 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Xilentshadow, what is going to be done is an end to this pointless debate. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • "keep in mind that non-LFL employee statements about IU information in an unlicensed format is considered unofficial until "canonized"." Unless, of course, they're reciting official information. I've asked Karen what the difference is. She will resolve this.--Xilentshadow900 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
          • There you go again. It's as if you think Karen Traviss is George Lucas. You always call on her to resolve your disputes. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't see why not. She is probably the best authority on clones; it's one of her main focuses. Even more reason: she's willing to talk. Who else am I going to ask without waiting forever?--Xilentshadow900 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Xilentshadow, the point is that, after looking through the history of this article, you've been changing a lot of things involving this topic. The point is, this should be merged into Advanced Recon Commando no matter what. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
                • If it was merged, then should we merge all the Death Star Articles? The Victory Star Destroyer articles? These are two different subjects, therefore: two different articles.--Xilentshadow900 20:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • No. We have far more information on each of your "examples". There's not a lot of information here, at least actual information. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • Yet they are significantly different.--Xilentshadow900 20:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
                      • Let me guess—a red stripe. I now see why SparqMan wants this merged. If we were to remove all of the sourceless information, there would be a small paragraph and two images. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• We soon will have sources however. Just wait until Karen's response, then we'll decide.--Xilentshadow900 20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ... to merge the article into Advanced Recon Commando. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, I got a pretty cryptic response: "ARC is generic and ARC captain is specific. Like Royal Marine and Royal Marine sergeant."--Xilentshadow900 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There. The page can be merged into Advanced Recon Commando, since Karen Traviss said it herself. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree.--Xilentshadow900 22:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay, then. SparqMan, it's time to take the actual information and put into a separate section on the ARC page. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Therein lies the original problem. The Equipment section of ARC covers pretty much all there is, and in a more elegant way (instead of just saying "There were ARC captains"). What else is there? --SparqMan 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)