Forum:TC:In umbris potestas est

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 Create a separate article, put all the info there, and then fight over the redirect. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:39, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

In umbris potestas est (talk - history - links - logs)

I simply do not see any reason in having an article about a phrase. We also seem to have a precedent to support this. The BTS of Sith holocron is more than enough for the subject.

Redirect to Sith holocron

Mauser^Comlink 17:28, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Definitely.—B-Boba Fett! ^{Make the check out to "Boba Fett"} 17:38, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Per precedent. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 18:01, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

It's something written on something else. We really don't need articles on every bit of writing that appears when it can just be noted in the relevant article. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:07, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Keep

I liken this to May the Force be with you, another IU "saying." And this is somewhat different than the PATSFAN thing. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:36, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tope, with heavy leaning towards Tranner's suggestion below in comments. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:20, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Create a separate article, put all the info there, and then fight over the redirect

1. Per my statement below. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 19:24, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
2. As long as there's a redirect, I'm happy with this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:28, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
3. What it's written on is worthy on an article. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:30, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
4. Actually, I would be pretty much okay with that as well. Is the title Unidentified Sith holocron acceptable? Mauser^Comlink 19:31, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
   • Fine with me. When I had suggested the longer title, I didn't realize that "Unidentified Sith holocron" was a redirect. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 19:33, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
   • I don't see there being any need to argue over the redirect. Now that the original holocron Unidentified Sith holocron was created for has a name, the redirect isn't necessary. Might as well put it to good use for this holocron. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:39, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
5. Definitely the best option. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:35, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
6. Per below.—B-Boba Fett! ^{Make the check out to "Boba Fett"} 19:48, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
7. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 21:04, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
8. Per JMAS. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 23:13, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Tranner. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 00:05, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
10. I'm a shameless bandwagoner. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 00:10, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
11. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 10:56, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
12. Grunny ^(Talk) 11:00, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Might I suggest that a new option be added? I think it would be more appropriate if an article was created on this holocron (perhaps Unidentified Sith holocron (Jedi Archives) or whatever, if this holocron does not yet have its own article), and then the information from the In umbris potestas est article added to the new article. Then, the article up for deletion could be deleted (or left as a redirect, I don't care). Thoughts? Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 19:14, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:17, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Agreeable.—B-Boba Fett! ^{Make the check out to "Boba Fett"} 19:43, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

• • • Also agreed, but I'd move the page to keep the edit history. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 16:42, December 12, 2009 (UTC)