Forum:TC:List of twins

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:List of twins

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 consensus to convert into an article, regardless of what the voting headers make it look like. jSarek 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

List of twins (talk - history - links - logs)

Unneeded, incomplete and generally pathetic.

Delete

  1. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 08:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Yoinks! This needs to go! Yoinks! This needs to go!--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 08:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. One more to go. Mauser 08:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • An article about twins would be welcomed, but the list still has to go. Mauser 07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Convert to article or category, but still kill the list. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 13:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Darth Culator. GB57 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. There is no corresponding category for this. The information does not exist elsewhere, and deleting it capriciously serves absolutely no purpose. It may not be "needed," but it conveys canonical information about the Star Wars universe. This is the absolute foundation of the site. -LtNOWIS 08:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why can't we simply create "Category:Twins"? Yes, yes, it may appear to be absurd on the face of it, but it's better than a list—besides which, the info is in the articles themselves.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 09:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Because the whole point is that they're two individuals with a connection. With a category, it's harder to see the connection. Especially when there are, for example three Solos who are twins, or Gilly and Spence, who don't share a surname. -LtNOWIS 09:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. While a categorization scheme could be worked out to present the information contained on this list, the pertinent information would end up being hidden behind links such as "Category:X twins", while in list form, the information is presented in a more convenient format. Therefore, I think we should keep this list, though a "twins" article may also work.--Muuuuuurgh 09:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Keep per LtNOWIS. A category wouldn't show you them in pairs unless you were to create a slew of articles akin to the Solo twins page for no other purpose than populating such a category. How is that any better than a single list? jSarek 11:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Keep per NOWIS and jSarek, but move to twin, where info on the significance of twins in Yuuzhan Vong culture and an explanation of twins etc. etc. should go, along with the list. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per Acky. Graestan(Talk) 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per the Acks-Man. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. A category is not going to show the relationship but this does need to be more than a simple list. Move to twins and create disambig for twin. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Convert to article and delete list

  1. I think Culator has the best idea. Twins currently redirects to The Twins, so remove the redirect, make it an article and category, then delete the list. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I have to agree. It seems most of the users who voted for keep would rather do this as well. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 05:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Since this article appears its going to be kept anyways, and since I believe this is what everyone is looking for regardless of what decision wins this vote, when the voting period ends I'm going to remove the Twins redirect and move this List's corresponding information to a proper "Twin" article. Twins are a reoccurring IU "phenomenon," if you will. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Seems to be the rare case where a list is more useful as an article than category form. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per JMAS et al. DolukTalk 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Continuing my trend of voting for something more complex than "keep" or "delete." List is silly on it's own, but a category is even less useful. Article would be interesting, and a place for this. Wildyoda 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force...Quigonheadshot 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Jeez, why do we always need a vote splitting third option? We've got votes for converting it to an article in both the "keep" and "delete" columns, and now a third...should I make another? This just muddles what's already a fairly clear consensus. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Whoever decides to close it would probably interpret both of the last groups as different kinds of keep votes. Besides, since some of the comments on the straight "keep" and "delete" votes support the last option, the consensus would look even clearer if some people moved their names accordingly. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)