Forum:CT:Action figures

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Action figures

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Closed by request to redo choices, prevent overlap, etc. in a new vote. —Xwing328^(Talk) 21:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Quinlanfan began this in the general discussion forum. I've brought it here for those interested in discussing the topic. — SparqMan ^Talk 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This descussion is weather we should allow information about action figures on certain character's pages. Please cast your vote. All in favor say I. All who dissagree I Don't. Please only vote once. Thank you! —Unsigned comment by Quinlanfan (talk • contribs).

Include information on action figures

I Quinlanfan 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason not to have a seperate "==Merchandising==" section. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Imp 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Volemlock 20:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Herbsewell 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC) If it's Star Wars, it's here.
I'll vote to include a BRIEF "==Merchandising==" section. It shouldn't be a "list of products" per se, but a general summary of the subject's coverage in the collectables market. I'd also support links to a new Star Wars Collectables Wiki. --Azizlight 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Azizlight. Adamwankenobi 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Per Azizlight. As long as the new "Merchandising" section is placed within the "Behind the scenes" section.–Sentry ^Talk 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
.... 06:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ramblinwreck90 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I Mandofett 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not include

~~Leader 20:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~~

Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Only for EU characters should a note be made in the Behind the Scenes section. Otherwise, toywiki.org is the wiki for things like this. --Redemption^Talk 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~~
I can't support something so non-specific. I'd gladly allow action figure information on the conditions that it is only for notable figures (meaning EU characters only, since it's hardly news when somebody produces a new Luke Skywalker figure) and only for figures that actually exist (not, "OMG somebody said their cousin whose friend works at the company that hauls Hasbro's trash says they're going to make a Quinlan Vos figure!!!111!!!11!"). Until the terms are laid out more precisely, I oppose this silliness. -- Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~~

Have a separate Star Wars merchandise wiki, keep merchandise info off this wiki, and provide links to pages on the merchandise wiki

~~Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~~

This, unless the item in question provides new In-Universe information not available elsewhere. —Xwing328^(Talk) 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto to what Xwing 328 said. - JMAS 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Leader 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As Xwing328 said, we can have new IU info or BTS that helps determine canonical items, see Unknown tridactyl species#Number of toes. But whatever happens, we don't need any mention of C-3PO underwear. -- Riffsyphon1024 12:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Per Riff. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)~~
^{Commander Jorrel Fraajic} _{Communications Relay} 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Include ONLY pertinent, canon, non-redundant information from toys, but do not make a list of merchandise HERE, regardless of whether a Star Wars merchandise wiki materializes

--Wildyoda^{-talk-contribs-} 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
See comment below.--Valin Kenobi 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
See comments for reason for double vote ^{Jorrel Fraajic} _Comlink 16:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Redemption^Talk 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Darth Ceratis 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Include without comment in Appearances section, with links to overall set articles

See below for my thinking. jSarek 08:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I have an interesting example. Currently, the Mitth'raw'nuruodo page has three things relevant to this conversation in the Behind the scenes section.

Artistic renditions of Thrawn during his final campaign often picture him with a ysalamir.
An action figure of Thrawn was made in 1998 as part of the Expanded Universe assortment of the Power of the Force 2 line. The figure came with a blaster pistol and an ysalamir.
A Star Wars miniature was made of Thrawn, from the 'Universe' Set produced by Wizards of the Coast, depicting him with an ysalamir draped over his shoulder.

By themselves, the second two would seem to be exactly what this discussion is talking about, whether that is useful information for this wiki. Combined with the first point though, they support the fact that he is often portrayed with an ysalamir. I think this is an interesting fact and that it can sorta be a precendent. If there is information that is more functional than a list of merchandise, and as long as it is canon and not in contradiction to other higher sources and not simply duplicating information that has already been provided, then it is pertinent to our goal of chronicling the Star Wars universe. I've therefore created that as a voting option, and changed the titles of Support and Oppose to make them more clear voting options. And I apologize for the ridiculously long option title. --Wildyoda^{-talk-contribs-}

23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading some of the comments in the votes, and it seems like there are more options being voted on than there are currently displayed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't that what always happens? :P —Xwing328^(Talk) 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That's why I added my voting option, and maybe we should split the "support" again. And I think we should have a totally separate discussion of a Merchandise wiki. Doesn't that have to go through some other people above us as well anyway? --Wildyoda^{-talk-contribs-} 02:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm not going to vote until the voting options are all sorted out, but I do want to note that action figures do play a role in canon - for instance, Leland Chee says in the comments for this blog that "I'll leave the issue with the Ewoks [Lumat and Romba] open until it comes up in a future source. I'd lean towards using the image on the action figure packaging." jSarek 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Wildyoda: Yeah, we'll probably have to add another option. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well, if this vote ends with the majority supporting the first option, we might need another vote to narrow it down. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well I'd go with anything, though having a merchandising section might be unnecessary.--Herbsewell 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        I thought you were in favor of that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        No, I just wanted it in the wiki. Putting it somewhere in the article like the Behind the Scene section would suffice.--Herbsewell 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        Oh. Well, if anything, I'd go for a short "Merchandise" section in the "Behind the scenes" section. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        For one figure?--Herbsewell 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well, it would depend on how many toys/collectables the article's subject had. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well then how about just one?--Herbsewell 03:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        That wouldn't last long. Someone would eventually add every bit of information on collectables to the article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        You aren't listening. What if just one figure, for one character. What else would they add.--Herbsewell 14:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        I am listening. Someone would end up adding information on every toy made on the subject of that article. Luke Skywalker would end up having information on over twenty figures. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        No you are not. What if there was only one figure?--Herbsewell 14:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        Then be more specific next time. And it would depend on the vote. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well, it would depend on how many toys/collectables the article's subject had. Well then how about just one?. I answered your question and I can't get more specific than that.--Herbsewell 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        It seemed to me you were just repeating yourself. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well I have to if you didn't get it the first time.--Herbsewell 14:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        Then you should have said something like "Well then how about if there was only one action figure made on the subject". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        You're right, I'm wrong. Nobody could've guessed that one figure meant one figure on the subject of the article. I should have spelled it out instead of summarizing it because I'm too lazy.--Herbsewell 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        You're being sarcastic, aren't you. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I get the impression that this "comments" section has degenerated into a pointless argument between Jack and Herbsewell. Is this necessary? Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 21:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- No. I was just trying to be helpful. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Only if the toy contributes something useful to canon, or is notable in some other way (say, EU figures). It will be useful in many cases, but the vast majority of articles don't need it. I've been a collector for years, so it's not that I'm against the toys--I just don't think it belongs here. Frankly, I don't see much need to start a SW merch wiki either, since there are plenty of excellent sites that already cover that in considerable detail (JediDefender.com, RebelScum.com, GalacticHunter.com, Yoda's News, Sir Steve's Guide, and on and on). So I see no reason to reduplicate the wheel and clutter our articles with extraneous garbage about, say, all the figures that have been made out of C-3PO.--Valin Kenobi 22:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I have no problem with the Mr. Potato Head Star Wars figures and other notable collectables having articles, but that's where I'd draw the line. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well you originally complained just because we were going to mention it.--Herbsewell 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I said notable collectables, not all collectables. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Sorry Jack, it's all or nothing. We just can't pick and choose our articles.--Herbsewell 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        No, it's not all or nothing. If it was all or nothing, every piece of information from the RotS novelization would be included next to the information from the film. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        That would be redundant.--Herbsewell 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        In any case, this vote will decide. What either of us think is irrelevant as of now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Sorry Jack, it's all or nothing. We just can't pick and choose our articles. Let me be the first to say ... why the hell not? I don't understand why every policy debate around here always turns into absolutist black-and-white/all-or-nothing arguments with no room for shading or nuance. Every rule has exceptions, and I certainly don't see that as a bad thing.--Valin Kenobi 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        Exactly. Anyway, I'm starting to move toward the option you voted for, Valin, though I'm still debating on it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well I'm just looking for a solid argument for your position.--Herbsewell 15:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        So when I'm the only one saying it, it's redundant, but when someone else supports my side, you're just looking for a solid argument? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        What's redundant?--Herbsewell 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        Never mind. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        What did you think I called redundant? You said we should put all information from the RotJ novel and I said that was redundant.--Herbsewell 15:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        That's why I said "Never mind". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        Oh that's why.--Herbsewell 15:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        Anyway, does anyone have any ideas for other options? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        And if there are, please make an argument on why this idea is better than what we have previously seen.--Herbsewell 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        I don't think arguments would be necessary, unless it was a topic that was rather unusual. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        Oh yes they are. Why should we care about their position if they don't give us a collective form of statements to establish their definite proposition.--Herbsewell 16:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well, the name of the option alone would basically be enough. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        It would, but if they don't explain it's advantages it's not going to take off with the rest of us. That is unless they expect us to figure out the pros and cons ourselves.--Herbsewell 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        Whatever. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Question: In theory, one could vote for both the Star Wars Merchandise Wiki and the one below it, right? Neither contradicts the other. ^{Jorrel Fraajic} _Comlink 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of course.--Herbsewell 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I made it clear in my earlier proposition above, but I'm not opposed to articles for a few notable collectibles such as Darth Tater. Just as long as they're legitimately notable and not, as I said, filler garbage about every figure that's been made of C-3PO.--Valin Kenobi 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Jorrel, the option I originally voted for says "keep all merchandise info off of this wiki". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Ah, I see that now... Hmm, which to chose... Jorrel Fraajic 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Or you can create another option... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Well, I would, except this vote's been going on for a while, and another option inserted this late might confuse people. Jorrel Fraajic 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        I don't blame you. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        On an unrelated question, how long are these votes going to go for?--Herbsewell 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        It could end at any time, I suppose. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well is it in the same form as featured article nominations, where it stops when we stop?--Herbsewell 01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        I don't know if it's the same length as the FA nominations. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        Consensus Tracks typically go two weeks. However, with this one, I think we're going to need to iron out the details once the basics (to include or not to include) are decided. —Xwing328^(Talk) 02:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        Or we might need to restart this altogether—I have a feeling that some users aren't aware of the new options. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        So what?--Herbsewell 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        So others can be aware of other options they might want to vote for. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well they can put it up themselves.--Herbsewell 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        You're not listening. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        What do you mean "not listening"? What would I be listening to, me tapping on the keyboard?--Herbsewell 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        His arguement about restarting this consensus track. Anyway, I agree with Nebulax. Maybe some options should be reworded also. Jorrel Fraajic 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Definitely a good idea. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'd help with the rewording, if you'd like. Jorrel Fraajic 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        No, restarting it would probably be the best.--Herbsewell 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Herbsewell, why can't you ever agree with me in the first place? And Jorrel, I think we should still reword it for the time being. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Jack, what I do is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.--Herbsewell 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        At Nebulax: That's fine. Either way (restarting or just rewording), it (rewording) still needs to be tackled. Jorrel Fraajic 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Herbsewell, agreeing with me is not "irrelevant to the topic at hand". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        You asked why Jack Nebulax, which is irrelevant.--Herbsewell 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        <sigh>. Anyway, Jorrel, what do you think we should change the options to? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well if it's changed, some might not agree what they are voting for.--Herbsewell 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        By "changed" I mean "reworded". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        <sigh>. Then say what you mean, <sigh>. The confusion depresses me.--Herbsewell 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Enough with the personal vendetta against me, Herbsewell. Stop bringing it onto talk pages. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm killing the long line of bullets Herbsewell is right. Maybe it would just be easier to restart with some more organization. For example, the first original two questions are really vague, and one overlaps one of the later options. The merchandsing wiki option needs to be more pronounced and needs less conflict with the one under it. Jorrel Fraajic 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  - <sigh>this is for real, should we reword it or restart it?--Herbsewell 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I say both. Restart the thing, and then reword the current options. Jorrel Fraajic 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Agreed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well if we're rewording it, why would we be restarting it?--Herbsewell 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        We'd reword the options on the new vote. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Why would there be a new vote?--Herbsewell 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Because, like you said before, some of the options would be changed, and the voters might not like their votes there, so we'd be restarting anyways. Jorrel Fraajic 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Exactly. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Ah, I concur.--Herbsewell 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        So, who wants to do it? Jorrel Fraajic 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        We'll need an admin to officially close this to make way for the new vote. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        So, who wants to ask an admin? Jorrel Fraajic 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'm heading out now, so I can't. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        I just asked Xwing.--Herbsewell 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        Thanks. Jorrel Fraajic 21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I thought up some redone options in Wookieepedia:Jundland Wastes... fix as you feel fit. Jorrel Fraajic 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- What if we made sub votes?--Herbsewell 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  - The vote is closed now. Let me know when you start the new one. —Xwing328^(Talk) 21:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Include in Appearances

Okay, it's clear from recent comments by Leland Chee like the aforementioned in this blog and this comment in the Holocron thread that toys are C-canon sources, just like anything else made recently. So, they should be treated like those other things, and have any pertinent information added to relevant articles and links be made in their Appearances sections. However, an individual article for each action figure would be overkill, so we should take a page from things like the SWCCG and, instead of an article for each item, have an article for each set that's released. jSarek 08:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think we should be going around add toys into the "Appearances" section; perhaps the "Sources" section. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I see what you're saying jSarek, but I still think it should only be listed if it contributes something not seen elsewhere in canon, and the vast majority of toys do not. Example of exceptions would be the Armored Scout Tank and many of the Jedi Force toys. Again I point to C-3PO as an example--do we really want his Sources/Appearances clogged up with Kenner:Vintage, Kenner: Power of the Force 2, Hasbro:Episode I, Hasbro:Power of the Jedi, Hasbro:Saga1, Hasbro:Original Trilogy Collection, Hasbro:Revenge of the Sith, Hasbro:Saga Collection, Hasbro:30th Anniversary Collection, Galoob:MicroMachines, Galoob:Action Fleet, Playskool:Galactic Heroes, Hasbro:Attacktix, Hasbro:Jedi Force, etc.? Because this is what we would get. And few, if any, of these tell us anything new. However, I am not necessarily opposed to creating brief CCG-style articles for each set released--as long as we avoid needlessly reinventing a wheel that has been perfected by other sites.--Valin Kenobi 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I'd say "Appearances" is more accurate, Nebulax; action figures are rarely sources, but they are a place where the character appeared. Valin, it has already been decided (against my opinion, but that's another matter) that Appearances and Sources should state any mention of a character, not just mentions that provide new information. I don't see how action figure sets would clog up 3PO's article any more than other uninformative appearances do. jSarek 10:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Those "other uninformative appearances" are far more necessary then listing action figures in "Appearances" section. And action figures are not "a place where the character appeared"; that's incorrect, because there's no actual appearance. So, a figure of a character alone is not an appearance. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        Correct. That's an out-of-universe appearance, not in-world. Jorrel Fraajic 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        Exactly. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.