Forum:TC:Force shapechanging

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 or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:22, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Force shapechanging (talk - history - links - logs)

This article is based entirely on conjecture and speculation; Ewoks: The Battle for Endor does not explicitly state that Charal's shapeshifting ability had anything to do with the Force and instead seems to indicate that her power was derived from her ring. Book of Sith: Secrets from the Dark Side (which admittedly wasn't released at the time that the article was written) further clarifies the nature of the ability, by stating that the Nightsisters possessed a number of rings and pendants known as "Talismans of Transformation," which allowed the user to transform into the form of an animal. Furthermore, the book also states that "One of our sisters has yet to return the Talisman of the Raven," which seems to be a reference to Charal and her ability. The book also states that power of these talismans came from "spirits," and does not state that it came from the Force. In short, we have no reason to believe that the shapeshifting was Force-related and the ability can be adequately covered by article for Charal's ring, so does not need an article of its own. --Jinzler 18:42, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Delete

Jinzler 18:42, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like good logic to me.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:44, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

1. Definitely. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 18:51, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

   1358 ^(Talk) 19:04, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

   Per EJ. Master Jon ^{Council Chambers} Monday, January 23, 2012, 22:21 UTC

   This was my own article but I've got to admit nothing can be said against Jinzler's opinion. I hadn't (and still haven't) read The Book of Sith at the time, though. LelalMekha 22:30, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

   Definitely.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 23:26, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

   Shibby Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:26, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

   I vote delete! Menkooroo 23:29, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

   Agreed. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 00:12, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

   Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 00:20, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

1. As it's mentioned to be a Force power in Casus Belli 109, though there should be additional information about the talismans. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:35, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
2. Now that we have confirmation, per Jaymach. Master Jon ^{War Room} Thursday, January 26, 2012, 16:44 UTC
3. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 20:14, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
4. If new info can save my child, then I'll change my vote. LelalMekha 20:37, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
5. Ugh. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 20:39, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
6. Per MJ. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 22:10, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
7. I vote keep! Menkooroo 22:17, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
8. Ah. Now i'm agreed. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 16:48, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
9. nou 1358 ^(Talk) 22:23, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
10. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 13:10, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
11. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:50, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
12. Jaymach to the rescue. Bella'Mia 05:36, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
13. Shibby. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:55, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
14. Well, dagnabit, if we're going to snowball this thing.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 01:20, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Isn't Casus Belli ambiguously canon? Don't we need to tag that accordingly? DD97^{Which bear is best?} 06:15, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure it is. That wouldn't really affect the outcome of this TC, but I believe it should be.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 16:53, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • It definitely is ambiguously canon.LelalMekha 18:19, February 7, 2012 (UTC)