This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge into Plo Koon. Imp 00:13, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Contents
Plo Koon's Delta-7 Aethersprite-class starfighter[]
Votes[]
Keep[]
- Keep', as for the source: The episode III movie, as we all saw it. If nothing else it represents a factoid about Star Wars. Geekmasterflash 22:12, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --- what he said. :-P KEJ 13:24, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly Keep, though this is a tricky one. Whether this article stays or goes, I think we need to modify our Starships categories in order to differentiate between ship classes and individual ships. --Azizlight 13:35, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Delete[]
- Completely pointless. One user, User:Geekmasterflash, protests that it should stay, saying that it was different from other Aethersprites, yet he has given no source for his claims. Also, he says it should stay just because of its different paint job. So, I say delete. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:10, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Like I said on the article's talk page, a simple difference in paint job does not differentiate a starfighter from its "factory standard" enough to substantiate a separate article for it. And as far as we know, no technical modifications were made to Koon's Aethersprite, so that makes it even less noteworthy. The note on Koon's page should suffice.--Knightfall 23:21, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Merge[]
- Givin the lack of evidence to support canon reference to this starfighter being specially modified seems kinda weak I'd have to say delete. Maybe that is what was written on the box for the Hasbro toy but I'm not sure that would count as a source. But I think this would make a good addition to Plo Koon's main article. It's not perticuliarly long and would fit as a stub I think pretty well so I say merge. Also, the paint job is pretty awesome, but not good enough for its own article. >_> -- TheLIGHTSABERwieldingNERFHERDER 23:24, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Yes! I also agree to TheLIGHTSABERwieldingNERFHERDER. If not to stay, then merge with Plo Koon's article. It would make a great addition to his page. I still say keep but merging is just fine. A Lightsaber 23:27, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. We have articles like Onderonian Warships and Sith Escort Gunship which are unnamed ships that we have no information on, but have appeared and deserve to be cataloged in some way. Maybe those articles will be folded into other ones later on. For now, it seems easier to merge this into Plo Koon because we can, unlike other small articles that have nowhere else to go. --SparqMan 00:37, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:21, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, though I guess that's just happened. -LtNOWIS 21:37, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. Too non-notable to be a separate article. - Sikon [Talk] 18:14, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. Most people seem to be in favor of this option. When is a decision going to be made? JimRaynor55 01:07, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Comments[]
- What about your claims that it was modified? Where's that source? Plus, what you have is only an appearance. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:14, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- The movie itself, would need to be blind to say that it is the same as any Aethersprite, as it is clearly at least a different color scheme. I dont even care if the article stays, so long as it gets mentioned somewhere in conjuction with Koon. Also, I never claimed it was modified past having a different appearance. Please look at the article history before saying something like that.Geekmasterflash 22:15, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/R5-A2 This also is only an appearance, with little other actual fact/information on. Shall we delete this also? Geekmasterflash 22:18, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Droids, for all intents and purposes, are individual characters. A better comparison is calling Obi-Wan's Eta-2 "modified" because it had the Open Circle logo painted on it. CooperTFN 22:32, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- That isn't quite right, because they all had that logo, from what I've seen.Geekmasterflash 22:33, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Not all, but you're right that it was on more ships than it's supposed to be. They retconned it as originating with Open Circle, but becoming popular among other units throughout the army, probably due to Anakin's and Obi-wan's notoriety. CooperTFN 22:43, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Anyway, I added a note about the fighter to Plo's page in Behind the Scenes. That work for you? CooperTFN 22:43, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Works just fine, no need for redundancy, 'delete. Geekmasterflash 22:46, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- It's pretty good acually. Maybe changing the customized part about it and saying other things. I say it should stay, with some editing of course. A Lightsaber 23:09, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- ::facepalms:: CooperTFN 23:12, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- It's pretty good acually. Maybe changing the customized part about it and saying other things. I say it should stay, with some editing of course. A Lightsaber 23:09, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Works just fine, no need for redundancy, 'delete. Geekmasterflash 22:46, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- That isn't quite right, because they all had that logo, from what I've seen.Geekmasterflash 22:33, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Droids, for all intents and purposes, are individual characters. A better comparison is calling Obi-Wan's Eta-2 "modified" because it had the Open Circle logo painted on it. CooperTFN 22:32, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I think my note is all the merging this article requires. CooperTFN 23:45, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/R5-A2 This also is only an appearance, with little other actual fact/information on. Shall we delete this also? Geekmasterflash 22:18, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- The movie itself, would need to be blind to say that it is the same as any Aethersprite, as it is clearly at least a different color scheme. I dont even care if the article stays, so long as it gets mentioned somewhere in conjuction with Koon. Also, I never claimed it was modified past having a different appearance. Please look at the article history before saying something like that.Geekmasterflash 22:15, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it would be best to merge a little bit to Koon's page, but this article is definitely not needed at all. And Geekmasterflash, you are not providing any information for your claim that the starfighter was modified. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:06, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- That IS BECAUSE I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS. Geekmasterflash 13:42, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- But this starfighter is not a kind of starfighter, but an individual's starfighter, and is therefore not needed for anything, except a metion on the charcter's page. But there are special exceptions, like the Sharp Spiral and Azure Angel, because they have names. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:39, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Funny that, I made the exact same point on the page in question, in which you said it didnt deserve even that. Do you read before making a critique on a person? Geekmasterflash 13:55, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- It's been resolved, J. =) CooperTFN 01:21, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Geekmasterflash, it's over. Face it. Parts of the article are going to show up in the Plo Koon article, which is fine. But, this page was pointless from the beginning. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:18, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I am making a point on you watching your wording so you dont have the appearance of a personal attack, or flat lies. You mention a number of times what I have stated that I have not, and failed to mention what I actually said, which was exactly what your comment before said, only worded differently. Geekmasterflash 21:23, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Well, all I want is this page gone, as it is pointless. That's simple enough. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:26, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that, I do have a problem in how you presented both myself and my arguement erroniously. Geekmasterflash 21:28, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Geekmasterflash, just forget about it already. I won't say present "both [yourself] and [your] arguement erroniously" anymore. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:32, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Jesus, I said it was resolved. Jack, no matter what Flash was or wasn't saying before, the argument was over until you started it up again. The page is getting deleted, so leave it alone. CooperTFN 01:14, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Good. That's all I wanted in the first place. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:37, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- There is no point to keep this article. If anything, it should be merged with Plo Koon, something that has already happened. I see no reason at all to keep this article. As for Geekmasterflash's "source", the movie doesn't say anything about this starfighter—therefore, it is merely an appearance. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:01, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Good. That's all I wanted in the first place. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:37, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Jesus, I said it was resolved. Jack, no matter what Flash was or wasn't saying before, the argument was over until you started it up again. The page is getting deleted, so leave it alone. CooperTFN 01:14, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Geekmasterflash, just forget about it already. I won't say present "both [yourself] and [your] arguement erroniously" anymore. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:32, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that, I do have a problem in how you presented both myself and my arguement erroniously. Geekmasterflash 21:28, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Well, all I want is this page gone, as it is pointless. That's simple enough. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:26, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I am making a point on you watching your wording so you dont have the appearance of a personal attack, or flat lies. You mention a number of times what I have stated that I have not, and failed to mention what I actually said, which was exactly what your comment before said, only worded differently. Geekmasterflash 21:23, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Geekmasterflash, it's over. Face it. Parts of the article are going to show up in the Plo Koon article, which is fine. But, this page was pointless from the beginning. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:18, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Um, Sikon, I think it's already been taken care of. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:33, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- "When is a decision going to be made?" It's already been added to the Behind the Scenes section of Plo Koon, although it should be placed somewhere in the biography section. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:30, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Finally, it's over. It took a lot longer than I expected, but it's over. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:17, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- "When is a decision going to be made?" It's already been added to the Behind the Scenes section of Plo Koon, although it should be placed somewhere in the biography section. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:30, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)