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, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that JustinGann has taken it upon himself to move all of our pages on unnamed vehicles to Catalogue of unnamed vehicles. This was done without any consultation to others and according to him was only done to appease the people who kept putting them up for VFD (coughcough Valin Kenobi). I am against this move totally and am irritated that this was done without any sort of consensus being sought and only to appease unproductive visitors to our encylopedia. It will do nothing but create an incedibly huge and cluttered page, and unless someone is willing to modify all the redirects will make it impossible for people to find anything. And there is quite enough information for most, if not all, of these vehicles to stay at their own pages. We do it for characters, creatures, even battles, why not this? And if this does (hopefully) get rebuked, I'll be willing to restore all the pages that were made into redirects, so no one need use that as an excuse.
Voting
Support moving everything to "Catalogue of unnamed vehicles"
Supporting leaving unnamed vehicles at their own pages
- Kuralyov 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Atarumaster88
(Audience Chamber) 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - Havac 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yoshi626 08:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support dividing it up somehow
- I suggest a compromise: "Catalogue of unnamed starships", "Catalogue of unnamed ground vehicles", maybe? Or division by era? By the group using them? Separate articles are doomed to be stubby, but a catalogue of unnamed vehicles would be unreasonably large. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Move short, stub articles (only a couple lines) to Catalogue pages. Otherwise keep the longer unnamed articles as is. -Fnlayson 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support both of the above compromises. jSarek 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Valin Kenobi 10:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments
It's going to be difficult to find things on that Catalogue page since it is so long. I suggest more specific catalogue pages, like Catalogue of unnamed air vehicles, ground vehicles, water craft, space ships, etc. -Fnlayson 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Duh, that's pretty much what Silly Dan already wrote. -Fnlayson 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
First off, I just want to say it's unfair to single out JustinGann on this. He was always a supporter of individual articles for these sorts of things, and only under pressure from others (myself included) did he concede to moving their content to lists. Secondly, as the previous sentence indicates, calls for this move have come from more than just one direction (I can't find the original source for the press for the vehicles list, but a similar press was made for a creatures list here). Thirdly, I'd like to point out that lists for stubby, unnamed articles actually makes their content *easier* for people to find their content, since they don't have to play the game of "Guess the Title of the Unnamed Thingie." jSarek 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the discussion on VFD: Blue Lizard was too sparse; a lot of that discussion was actually here. jSarek 06:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"This was done without any consultation to others and according to him was only done to appease the people who kept putting them up for VFD (coughcough Valin Kenobi)." Hey, I didn't touch any of those vehicle entries. (Although I must admit, I'd been giving the Cerean cart the evil eye. ;D) "I am against this move totally and am irritated that this was done without any sort of consensus being sought and only to appease unproductive visitors to our encylopedia." I can only assume that refers to me, and despite that we seem to disagree on almost everything, calling me "unproductive" is plain incorrect. I've been contributing off and on for over a year with, it appears, about 450 edits large and small. Not being on here continuously over that period of time should hardly make me a "visitor".--Valin Kenobi 10:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can this be ended now? It's been almost three weeks with no votes. Kuralyov 19:35, 20 December 2006 (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 thread.