Forum:TC:List of changes in Star Wars re-releases

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:List of changes in Star Wars re-releases

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 keep.—Silly Dan (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

List of changes in Star Wars re-releases (talk - history - links - logs)

A very long and ponderous article that has ZERO sourcing and is filled with external links that explain the subject matter in far better ways than this waste of server space.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 01:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that this information would best be presented in either A. the behind-the-scenes sections of the movies' articles or B. new articles created for the individual re-releases, which would be appropriate considering that they are individual products and just as deserving of articles as anything else OOU. The spirit of Goodwood's strain of deletion here, I believe, is to avoid messy OOU list pages like this and to present the information in them, if it is not already redundant, in more valid articles for a professional level of consistency. Graestan(Talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 01:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Pending distribution of the information to more appropriate locations. Graestan(Talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 09:05, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Merge into each film's article

  1. Since this seems to be what Graestan and some of the "Keep" voters really mean, I'm starting a new option here. I don't think anyone seriously wants this information completely annihilated. Gonk (Gonk!) 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Not concisely written, but it's a subject we should have a specific page covering if we're going to be a Star Wars encylopedia-like thing. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. It actually does have some sourcing, albeit in a poorly formatted manner. Needs work, but shouldn't be deleted. jSarek 07:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Silly Dan, it belongs in a Star Wars encyclopedia-like thing and that's exactly what we are. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. A sucky article does not = purging from Wookieepedia. Otherwise Luke Skywalker would have been toast a long time ago. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. JMAS 15:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per Ataru. Unit 8311 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. But this info is even kinda useful. KEJ 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Either keep it here or split it into the articles on the films themselves. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. SOURCE NOT DELETE. Also in regards to "this waste of server space", Wookieepedia is NOT Paper. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Needs work, but it is good to have. -- Ozzel 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)