Forum:CT:Duels


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 no policy. -- Ozzel 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See Forum:Duel pages.

Redirect Duel pages to battles they are in

  1. Chack Jadson Talk 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. No real need to make seperate pages for duels. If the battle can cover the duel in the same amount of detail, we might as well redirect them. Unit 8311 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Make all Duel pages

  1. —DarthtylerTalk 00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

#Put the duel details in a separate article, not in the battle page. Several already exist anyway. -Fnlayson 03:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No policy

  1. I tend to argue common sense a lot (and that's what I'm doing). The problem with making a policy is things like (as Darth Tyler mentioned) "the Duel on Utapau happened before the Battle of Utapau." I feel like we are just going to have a gigantic set of exceptions to any policy we make because of one-article Consensus Tracks that will come up in the future. I'd say if there is a disagreement on whether a duel should be merged/redirected or not (like Fnlayson said, there's no reason they have to be... (but there's also no reason they have to not be)) then we simply come to a consensus on the relevant talk page and leave it alone. I know that makes for inconsistency, but there is inconsistency on how describable each individual duel is, and how connected to the larger battle it is. If I had to vote one of the above, I'd be for making duel pages for the sake of decluttering large battle pages. However, that just leads to people making ridiculous short articles about something that barely qualifies as a duel. So since there are problems both ways, I'm sticking with "no policy." Wildyoda 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Wildyoda. jSarek 04:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Wildyoda. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Although I'm not too fond of commonsensical argumentation, I have to agree with Wildyoda here. KEJ 11:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. I'm in agreement with the previous agreements with Wildyoda. - JMAS 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Instruction creep. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Much better. If there's enough material for a duel article, fine. -Fnlayson 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per above —Xwing328(Talk) 04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per Wildyoda. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

There are some of the duels that do redirect currently that should have their own articles. Duel on Death Star II, for one, is important enough of a duel that it should have it's own article. - JMAS 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)