This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was rename carrier, destroyer, and bomber articles, delete cruiser article..—Silly Dan (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Corellian cruiser (talk - history - links - logs)
- "In a remote and midnight vacuum beyond the edge of the galaxy, the vast Rebel fleet stretched, from its vanguard to the rear echelon, past the range of human vision. Corellian battle ships [sic], cruisers, destroyers, carriers, bombers, Sullustian [sic] cargo ships, Calamarian tankers, Alderaanian gunships, Kesselian blockade runners, Bestinian skyhoppers, X-wing, Y-wing, and A-wing fighters, shuttles, transport vehicles, manowars."
- ―James Kahn[src]
Oh no, it's a nitpicky question of grammar. Can we take the adjective "Corellian" to mean Corellian battleships, Corellian cruisers, Corellian destroyers, Corellian carriers, and Corellian bombers? Or should we leave it at Corellian battleships, together with cruisers, destroyers, carriers, and bombers of unspecified origin? I say the latter is all we can say with certainty. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Also note:
Corellian destroyer (talk - history - links - logs)Corellian carrier (talk - history - links - logs)- Corellian bomber (talk - history - links - logs)
- Is that really necessary? Like all other articles dealing with shiptypes ascribed to a certain faction, can't we just let them be? Especially since the list in the book continues with other factions and their ships. VT-16 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. As I said above, I'm not sure we can say with certainty that the cruisers, destroyers, carriers, and bombers were Corellian. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- But why skip several ship types and then continue on other factions and their vessels? look, this is ridiculous, the sentence includes Corellian vessels and then moves on to vessels from other factions, Sullust, Calamari, Alderaan, Kessel, Bestine, and finally all the starfighters and shuttles which come from many different places. Saying "Corellian" in-front of every ship type is just a waste of time. The fact that the author moves on to other factions would make no sense if he mentioned one faction, then various ships that aren't related to the first faction, then suddenly back to other factions again. VT-16 20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. As I said above, I'm not sure we can say with certainty that the cruisers, destroyers, carriers, and bombers were Corellian. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- VT-16, I agree that it probably means Corellian cruisers, destroyers, bombers and carriers. But probably isn't canon. Dan is right, we can't say for certain if it does or does not mean "Corellian" as an adjective for all of those ships. It is interpretable, and unless there are any other details on these supposed Corellian vessels, I'd say remove all ambiguous "Corellian" vessels. Wildyoda 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest renaming them, since they were identified as cruisers, destroyers, carriers and bombers. Use a non-affiliated term and say it's not known which faction they came from. This is from a novel published alongside the film in 1983, years before WEG invented a classification system without proper 'carrier' or 'destroyer' designations. At least acknowledge the existence of these ship types in the battle. Make the article names with "Rebel" instead of "Corellian". VT-16 01:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the way the paragraph is worded is not meant to imply Corellian lineage for any vessels but the "battle ships." If they were meant to be included, it would be a list with internal commas, which would require semicolons for the purpose of actual listing. The above passage would thus read as follows: "Corellian battle ships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers, bombers; Sullustian cargo ships; Calamarian tankers; Alderaanian gunships; Kesselian blockade runners; Bestinian skyhoppers; X-wing, Y-wing, and A-wing fighters; shuttles; transport vehicles; manowars." Therefore, rename per VT-16. jSarek 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Renaming for the cruisers and bombers, at least, might not be a good idea: the passage might be referring to Mon Cal cruisers and B-wings. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Has the B-wing ever been called a bomber in any source? I know that's basically its function, but is it ever mentioned? I agree with the reasoning and this removal, I just want to know if it's been called that. :) VT-16 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is it ok to rename them now? VT-16 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The carrier and the destroyer, yes. There should be a brief explanation in the BtS section, though. I still think we need more input on the cruiser and bomber articles, too. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- The cruiser article I can do without, but the bomber might refer to a different starfighter. I do see the lack of B-wings in the list of fighters, so it's probably meant to be it. VT-16 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- The carrier and the destroyer, yes. There should be a brief explanation in the BtS section, though. I still think we need more input on the cruiser and bomber articles, too. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Renaming for the cruisers and bombers, at least, might not be a good idea: the passage might be referring to Mon Cal cruisers and B-wings. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)