Forum:TC:List of clone troopers

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 delete. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

List of clone troopers (talk - history - links - logs)

List pages derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, a derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp... da teedily tum!

Derp (Delete)

  1. Darth Culator (Talk) 15:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Strongly per Culator. The list may look nice, but it attracts fanon. Mauser 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Sure, derplete, but I suggest a redirect to the category and an archive of the talk page somewhere. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. Culator, you are an eloquent, persuasive speaker. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. Please. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  6. Derp Culator Dangerdan97 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  7. Derplete, perd nomderp. jSarek 23:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  8. Derpolicious. Mecenarylord 23:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  9. Grunny (Talk) 09:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  10. Graestan(Talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  11. What the derp? -- Riffsyphon1024 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  12. Derp. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  13. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 11:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  14. Ta teetley tum! IFYLOFD (Come with me if you want to live.) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  15. I think I'm just going to vote out of spite. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Da deepidy (Keep)

  1. I have to strongly object the deletion of this article. When I discovered it some months ago, it was exactly as you all say: riddled with mistakes and fanon, and missing more then half of the official troopers. Since then, I took it upon myself to fill in the missing troopers, reorganize and correct mistakes, and delete the fanon. I monitor the page constantly to ensure it remains in pristine condition, accurate and up to date. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I turned this page from something dreadful into something respectable that quite a number of people have commended and comment that it's the easiest way to navigate the numerous clone trooper pages. --Shadowxander 00:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I can certainly respect the reliability of categories. Their very nature makes them extremely efficient. However, this list is somewhat more "user-friendly". I believe an appropriate analogy would be a complex spreadsheet filled with numbers compared to a graph or chart. Each medium provides the same data but a graph or chart offers the information in a way that makes it easier to read, easier to interpret, much like the ease I believe this list provides. As Fiolli said below, "if it is monitored closely it could be useful to our readers". I made this list as it currently stands and as I said above in my original post, I constantly monitor the page to ensure its continuing integrity. It's become my personal project on the site. As much as I would love for a hundred new clones to pop up, each with their own fascinating stories, I don't hesitate to shoot down fanon. I listed every verified trooper under the correct heading with their basic information if given: serial number, rank, name, and unit. This way there's no guessing if CC-7567 is Rex or if it's Gree, as is sometimes the case when working your way around the category page where only a number is listed. With this list you can also easily identify troopers that served together in the same division. The ease of access to knowledge is often the deciding factor, and this list has it; many users have hailed it as extremely well-done and an easy way to navigate the numerous clone trooper pages. Now I'm not an advocate for all the lists here, quite frankly most of them are ridiculously useless. But should this list continue to be handled intelligently and respectfully (which I can give my personal assurance that it will), it would be a powerful resource for learning. After all, people come to Wookieepedia to learn, so I say why throw out a valuable teaching tool? --Shadowxander 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. You know what? I'm actually going to change my mind on this one. After reading what Shadowxander said, I did some comparisons between the list and the various categories that would replace it, and for once I actually think that the list is more useful. The clones on the list fall under numerous different categories, and in the categories they're listed by their official designations without their nicknames - and since most people know them by their nicknames, it's easier to find info on the clone you're looking for using the list. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. While many of the lists that have recently been deleted were useless, this one seems to have some point to it and is more helpful than the category --Jinzler 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep this page, it is very well put together and organized for easy use. It is very helpful to those who wish to learn about specific clones./RC-1191 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (Single-issue voter)
    • Well I've looked very closely at the list and I have to say I fail to see any reason at all to get rid of it. The only issue raised above is that lists somehow encourage fanon. But I fail to see how a list somehow promotes this anymore then anything else. As stated above, this list provides additional details not available in the general categories, and brings together a multitude of information on one subject under one subject heading - which a category would not do. I fail to see any reason at all to delete this list other then a pervasive hatred of lists for reasons that haven't been adequately explained. If this were a court of law, this case would have been dismissed for lack of evidence. ASharpe 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (Single-issue voter)
  4. LtNOWIS 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A tum da teedily tum de derp (Comments)

  • If this was an Inqmoot, I'd almost vote for "probe." While we are prone to getting rid of lists, something like this, if it is monitored closely it could be useful to our readers. I'm undecided at the moment. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've formatted our friend's vote as a comment where it was originally posted, in the spirit that I can't assume he meant to vote one way or another. If he wishes to move the comment/turn it into a vote, that is his prerogative alone. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey Shadowxander - we're generally deleting lists in favour of categories (since the categories can be automatically populated, and are less prone to fanon). If you'd like this list to be kept, think of a reason why it's better than a category. If there's a good reason, let us know, and some of us might be convinced to change our votes. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 01:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to say thanks to Toprawa and Ralltiir for fixing my mistake, and to Doluk for extending the PM. Much appreciated. --Shadowxander 05:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)