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 consensus. Was this even worth a CT? I would recommend the user who came up with the idea to be bold and create such an infobox, wait for somebody to VFD it (if anyone), and then discuss. The opposition side does present rational arguments. - Sikon 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Wookieepedia really needs to include superweapon infoboxes to improve the quality of articles on superweapons. Articles like the orbital nightcloak, the various Death Star ones, Galaxy Gun, Sun Crusher and Superlaser would benefit a lot from this new infobox which makes the article look neater and reduces length and unnecassary repetition. We have infoboxes for characters, planets, moons, vehicles and ships, shouldn't we have one for superweapons. If you allow me to; I will create an infobox and install it in the articles. I personally want to have some role in helping you guys as I had a long time ago. MyNz 09:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support
- MyNz 09:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- SFH 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. -Fnlayson 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kuralyov 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- .... 07:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yesh. RC 2413 15:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Evir Daal 07:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jedipilot94 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Galaxy Gun, Darksaber, Dark Reaper, Planet Killer, Star Forge, World Devastator... CooperTFN 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- The space station template works for the Death Stars and Galaxy Gun. The Sun Crusher should use a spacecraft infobox. And so on. There's no need for a template that would have to apply across wildly different styles of superweapons. I don't see the call for it. Havac 19:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The Tarkin, and the Death Stars (in all their incarnations) are space stations. The Sun Crusher is a ship, as is the World Devastator. The only one that might not fit into any one of those categories is the Galaxy Gun, but a template isn't warrented for one superweapon. - JMAS 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Too standardized for too vastly different a set of things. Categorizing them all as superweapons does enough as far as standardization and organization. You wouldn't even have a single article that would be able to fill up all available entries in an infobox since some are ships/space stations/sets of satellites. Wildyoda 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Per Wildyoda. What fields would an orbital nightcloak, the Sun Crusher, overgrown dovin basals, and the Death Star all share that wouldn't be better covered by other infoboxes? jSarek 21:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Per all of those guys. - Lord Hydronium 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless it can be proven that they all share something unique not covered by another infobox. —Xwing328(Talk) 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Per Havac. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I need a name (Complain here) 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Imp
01:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Green Tentacle's new Template:Space station may work for the Death Stars or it could be the basis for a one that does. -Fnlayson 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- What should we do about that article orbital nightcloak? It has huge potential to expand. So should I use the device infobox then. I will get to work on it during the long weekend after finishing some schoolwork. MyNz 03:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- For superweapons that do not double as space stations or spacecraft, this could work. But what parameters are we going to use for this infobox? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, where are template experts RMF and Sentry when we need them? They will know how to deal with it. MyNz 05:07, 23 March 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 section.