Forum:TC:1800s

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:1800s
This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. JangFett (Talk) 00:14, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

1800s (talk - history - links - logs)

This article solely covers information relevant to the corporate history of Parker Brothers. While Parker Brothers obviously deserve an article of their own, given that they have produced various Star Wars-related products, we are a Star Wars-themed wiki so having a article that is dedicated to a non-Star Wars related subject strikes me as unnecessary. All of the information that is given on this page is already covered in the main Parker Brothers article, and unless we can find any other dates from the 1800s that are relevant to Star Wars, I think it would be best that this page be deleted.

Delete

  1. Jinzler (talk) 18:19, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  2. As cool as it is to have an article about the 1800s, I have to agree with Jinzler.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 20:32, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:33, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Trip391 (talk) 20:37, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  5. 1358 (Talk) 20:43, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  6. 501st dogma(talk) 20:50, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:08, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Per nom. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 02:48, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:00, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Indeed. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 02:10, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
  11. This is idiotic. JangFett (Talk) 11:53, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
  12. CC7567 (talk) 14:07, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  13. I don't think we need years of corporate founding for any Star Wars licensee. jSarek (talk) 21:44, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I created it for the entire 19th Century specifically because it would be difficult to populate in the future unless made generic. However, the sparsity of topics originating in the 1800s is not a reason this article should be deleted. It is no less relevant to Star Wars than the decade 1900s with its grand total of three entries, one of which is an old organization like this one (albeit one that did more Star Wars things). If you wanted to narrow it down to 1880s, that would be just fine, but our timeline articles have always included everything related to Star Wars for which we have articles. For Pete's sake, we left year articles that were empty up in anticipation of stuff that could be added turned up. And don't say "Those were articles about the future, and would be populated by something eventually" because they were populated by nothing then, and the 19th Century has the founding of Parker Brohters already. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:49, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Easily as relevant as 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s, which all cover birth dates and/or founding dates of people and/or companies that, like Parker Brothers, have something to do with Star Wars. Seven years' worth of precedent for this article to exist. Menkooroo (talk) 04:47, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Its the first thread in the giant quilt that is now Star Wars!!!Darth Pickle 2 (talk) 01:58, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
  4. In my understanding, articles should be TC'd when they're either entirely based on false data, not notable enough or purposeless. None of these conditions apply here. --LelalMekha (talk) 10:53, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Would it help to add the 19th century origins of a handful of other peripherally-Star Wars related companies, like J. M. Meulenhoff and Nintendo? —Silly Dan (talk) 14:46, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
    • J.M. Meulenhoff, definitely! Great find! :D As for Nintendo, I think it would be best to only go one layer of abstraction above the Star Wars source. There were Star Wars games on the NES and other systems by Nintendo, but Nintendo didn't make any Star Wars games. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 02:57, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected (and also surprised the London Symphony Orchestra didn't date back that far.) —Silly Dan (talk) 03:34, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
  6. I'd also vote keep due to the J. M. Meulenhoff connections. Due the translations, letting Star Wars get around the world, someone may be interested in some of its origins and look for a related date. It's a bit of a longshot, but why should that matter? Doesn't in my opinion. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 03:09, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Per Pickle. Fe Nite (talk) 18:21, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • While this article is getting attention, I once considered moving it to "Nineteenth Century," instead of "1800s" because it would necessarily have to sit next to 1900s, which is a decade, not a century? If the article is kept, would the template's clarity be more important than the template's homogeneity? NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 03:04, October 10, 2013 (UTC)