Forum:TC:Episode IV drafts

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Episode IV drafts

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 no consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:47, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Episode IV drafts

This TC thread applies to the following four articles:

These are nothing more than the first few drafts of Episode IV. If each were published as individual books, I might see reason for keeping them, but the articles give no evidence that this is the case; instead, all cite The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film as their source. Since they weren't published individually, I feel they should not have individual articles and should be merged (see comments section below) into The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film and Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope.

The question of the redirect target is another matter. I feel that if anyone actually searched these terms, they are most likely interested in behind the scenes stuff and should be redirected to the "making of" book rather than the general article on the film. Others may feel differently, however, so to avoid vote-splitting I have separated this into two votes. The first will determine what to do with the articles; the second will determine the redirect target if consensus in the first vote is to merge.

Vote 1: Merge/Keep

Merge and redirect to Episode IV drafts (alternate name suggestions welcome)

  1. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:47, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Better. jSarek 09:48, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 12:28, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
  4. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 16:13, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
  5. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:19, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per jSarek - JMAS Hey, it's me! 01:06, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
  7. I think this is reasonable enough. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:55, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
  8. Grunny (Talk) 02:15, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
  9. "Evolution of the Episode IV screenplay?" —Silly Dan (talk) 14:08, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
  10. Vandar Tokare42 22:00, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 02:47, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
    Jeffbacca-- I wrote these articles , when I was active on wookieepedia (before grad school...). I'd argue that the argument above is flawed, in as much as the scripts were privately published, officially or not, and placing the links in another article would eliminate the context for the related articles. At one point each of the scripts was briefly G-canon. 06:00, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
    I've stricken this vote because of its origination from an IP. Come back and vote under your actual registered username per Rule 1 of the TC process and it will be counted in the vote total. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:45, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Jeffbacca-- OK, voting from my actual account. If anyone wants to adopt, clean up and revise these articles, I'd very happy. 8:30, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
    • This is the bravest and most original statement on Wookieepedia this year. Good work on writing these articles. It's a shame we can't appreciate Star Wars history no matter how flawed. Andykatib 07:47, Sept 18 2009 (UTC)
  3. Keep, and dramatically expand the BTS of ANH to include more info about the development of these. —Xwing328(Talk) 16:41, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
    Unless another option is added for merging them into one "Epsiode IV drafts" article as suggested below by Qui-Gon, my vote goes here. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 22:33, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
    NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:50, September 17, 2009 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy)
    • Per Jonjedigrandmaster. jSarek 19:24, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  4. A valuable chapter in Star Wars history. What a shame that we are contemplanting removing heritage material.Andykatib 07:33, September 18, 2009
    JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:42, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  5. After long thought. MauserComlink 09:55, September 19, 2009 (UTC)</a>
  6. Per Jeffbacca, except I didn't write these articles. :P Graestan(Talk) 12:32, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
  7. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 16:21, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
  8. Keep it. Pabr Oebris 13:32, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
  9. The Doctor K.(No I'm not really a doctor.) 02:24, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Vote 2: Redirect target

This section will be irrelevant if consensus above is to keep.

The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film

#—Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:47, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope

Discussion

  • Please do not add additional options to either vote without discussing it here first. Thank you. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:47, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
    • What about merging them all into one "Episode IV drafts" article? I just feel that the drafts are notable enough to have something more than a section in the overall ANH article devoted to them; though I agree that each individual draft should not have a separate article. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 19:44, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
      • The original merge proposal appears to be a bust, so I've adjusted it to what QuiGonJinn suggested. This also makes the redirect vote moot, since the obvious redirect target would now be the merged article. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 03:04, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but why not rename the merge article "Star Wars drafts" and make it all-encompassing? There's some interesting info out there on the original draft(s) for The Phantom Menace. Show a prequel some love! =P - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 16:23, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

  • I think there's room on the Wook for separate draft articles for all six movies, just not an article for each draft. Thus, "Episode I drafts" could be its own article. jSarek 23:20, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • My, we have a rather even vote up there. People's feelings must be strong. Andykatib 21:11, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's more of a matter of people not fully realizing what the voting options mean. Nothing is being "removed" or "deleted" here, now that we've whittled this down to these two voting options. It's just whether we want them all in individual articles or in one central article, which I personally believe is a better option from an organizational perspective. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:20, September 29, 2009 (UTC)