This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus; default to keep. Grunny ^(Talk) 07:45, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

MC80 Star Cruisers ( history - links - logs)Edit

The following discussion applies to the following variations of the MC80 Star Cruiser (currently a disambiguation page):

• MC80 Home One type Star Cruiser
• MC80 Liberty type Star Cruiser
• MC80 wingless Liberty type Star Cruiser

I strongly believe we should get rid of all three of those, because they are fanon. See, numerous sources - from Databank to Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition) - state that no two MC80s are the same and each vessel has unique distinctions. The articles themselves acknowledge this, but still try to make imression that the MC80s could be divided in aforementioned subclasses. However, this is nothing more than a fan assumption using pure conjectural names. Official sources state that despite small differences, all ships share a basic MC80 designation, so no fan-made subclasses are needed. They should all be merged into one main MC80 Star Cruiser article.

Also, might I note that all three articles were originally created by a user VT-16, who was infamous for creating such conjecturally-named articles for vessels with small distinctions. We've been trying to get rid of them for some time now. Yes, I saw the warning at the Wookieepedia:Trash compactor page. But this is relevant to understanding the nature of the articles per established precedent.

I have not yet decided what to do with MC80a Star Cruiser, MC80B Star Cruiser and MC80 evacuation cruiser. It seems that at least some sources support their designation and until someone else proves that they are fanon as well, we should let them stay. The disambiguation page, that is currently at MC80 Star Cruiser, will need to be moved, however. Mauser^Comlink 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge the articles into MC80 Star CruiserEdit

1. Mauser^Comlink 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Mauser's logic. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 16:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

   —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

   Unless (and that seems unlikely) someone can present a logical reason to keep them as is. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Agree.--Golden Monkey 12:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Per JMAS. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 23:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

   Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 23:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

5. That they are in fact different classes is nothing more than Saxton fanon straight off SWTC. Numerous sources have stated that Mon Calamari vessels are all unique. Graestan^(Talk) 14:42, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
6. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 18:08, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

   QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 16:15, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

7. VT-16fanon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:02, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Keep as it isEdit

Keep Home One type and Liberty type; merge wingless Liberty type into the standard Liberty typeEdit

1. Keep Home One type and Liberty type; merge wingless Liberty type into the standard Liberty type. Per Rotbloyte and a published, offical source Dangerdan97 16:59, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
   • I'll slightly modify my vote to be in line with Master Jonathan's suggestion. Dangerdan97 22:42, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
2. Keep Home One type and Liberty type; merge wingless Liberty type into the standard Liberty type. SotG explicitly identifies the two subclasses as Rotbloyte pointed out below but makes no reference to a "wingless Liberty type", stating that "most fall into one of two categories," (emphasis added) not three. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 20:40, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
   • For the record, even if Rotbloyte was a VT-16 sockpuppet, his point about the subclasses being explicitly referenced in the Saga Edition Starships of the Galaxy is still valid. The first two are clearly identified on page 115 as canonical subtypes of the MC80 and should be kept. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 21:13, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
3. Per DangerDan and MJ. They're explicitly separate subclasses, and we have no more business merging them than the Imperial I and Imperial II class Star Destroyers. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 05:05, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
4. Per above. Additionally, I've take the liberty to create a new vote option to reflect the above comments. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 22:48, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
5. Official published source > fan arguments. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 15:54, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Ataru. jSarek 08:33, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
7. Official statements trump everything else. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 08:36, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
8. Grunny ^(Talk) 08:38, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

   Kitkun 03:46, September 18, 2009 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy)

9. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 15:17, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
10. Per several people above. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 15:34, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Once the voting is finished, I volunteer to perform the merge myself, as it seems to be a rather complicated one. Also, I will ask you not to add any other vote-splitting options. Mauser^Comlink 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the question was raised, here's the quote from the Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition):

Though no two Моn Calamari Star Cruisers are exactly alike, most fall into one of two categories. The Liberty type (named after the Liberty, which fought at the Battle of Endor) is considered the "standard" design type for all MC8O cruisers. The other variant, referred to as the Home One type (named for the Rebel command ship), is slightly tougher and more heavily armed. Though only a small number of MC8O Star Cruisers fit this profile, most starship designers consider it to be a subclassification of MC80 cruiser and not an entirely new class of the ship.

To me the bolded part leaves no place for ambiguity. I let you decide what you think about it. Mauser^Comlink 21:40, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether it's an example of a distinct class or not, shouldn't there be an article on the particular "wingless Liberty" type ship in the film (with BTS notes listing the named but never explicitly pictured ships at Endor it may have been)? —Silly Dan _(talk) 16:13, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think there should be any articles on the subtypes at all - all vessels are unique, we don't need articles for those "subclassifications", especially with fanon names. Mauser^Comlink 18:09, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
  • If that's in response to my comment, I mean that there should be an article on that one particular wingless ship, whether we count its class as regular MC80, "Liberty-type" MC80, or "wingless Liberty-type" MC80. (Unless there already is one, that is.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:07, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
    • Of course, upon closer examination, there are apparently several vessels represented by the same model in that scene in ROTJ, so we can't say there's one particular wingless ship. By extension of the results of Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/Unidentified Rebel officers, we can't have a "Unidentified wingless MC80s" article, only an article on whatever class they were. Four or more articles would be impossible, since they're indistinguishable on film (except for whichever ones are destroyed.) I'll withdraw the question. —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:43, September 7, 2009 (UTC)