Forum:TC:Low Altitude Assault Transport/space gunship

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Low Altitude Assault Transport/space gunship

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. Grunny (talk) 22:43, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Low Altitude Assault Transport/space gunship (talk - history - links - logs)

This is not a special variant of LAAT/i. It's a known fact that all these gunships can seal for short space flight for planetary landings. This isn't even really worth a redirect. If you have a suggestion for a third option (though I can't imagine what it might be), please discuss it first. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 14:55, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Delete

JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 14:55, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
yeah unless it could be sourced definitely that it's a special model for space to ground transport, delete it.<-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 15:25, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
It's fanon. I'd have merged/deleted it immediately. Graestan(Talk) 21:50, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, it isn't. The stupid episode guide calls it a "space gunship." - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 22:18, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Keep

  1. As stupid as it is, I'm gonna say keep. It's not fanon, and it's got some doohickies on it that aren't present on other LAAT/i's. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:39, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Per Trayus. I hadn't looked so closely at the image. Graestan(Talk) 22:47, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Per Trayus, it is very stupid and it's not fanon. However it's a verifiable fact that standard LAAT/i can seal for travel in space, and it is also well know they are easily modifiable, which accounts for the search lights. The Ep Guide saying it's "designated a 'space gunship'" could be nothing more than a production term and doesn't necessarily reflect a new IU LAAT variant. Therefore I would still think it deserves deletion, though I realize that won't happen. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 22:59, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Per the Episode Guide confirmation. And this is why we should let common sense make redundant TCs CSDable. Yes, CSDable is a word. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 22:57, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, we need to keep it. It seems canon. (Not the only stupid thing made canon in the episode). Kilson 22:59, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Per Nayayen. Master Jonathan (Council Chambers) Monday, March 14, 2011, 23:41 UTC
  7. Simple keep. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 02:16, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
  8. Well, isn't the current name fanon? No one has said there's LAAT in front. 1358 (Talk) 03:30, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, it's the kind of fanon this site is rife with. Graestan(Talk) 03:32, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
    As I said on the article's talk, I think it should be kept, but renamed to just 'space gunship' or whatever like that, as 'L' in 'LAAT' stands for 'low' so how is space low altidude, Now, this is non-canon rubbish probably, but lego released a set called Republic Gunship, and it had sealable doors, now YES i KNOW that lego is'nt canon so don't yell at me. Please the the article's talk page for more arguments for keeping this page from me, if it's desided to keep this page, I will do some research personaly and edit it. Thanks Skyguy007 05:51, March 15, 2011 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: User has 3 main space edits -- JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 06:02, March 15, 2011 (UTC))
  9. Per Kilson and Xd. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:41, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
  10. Keep, but if the name's fanon, get rid of it, or at least put up a conjecture tag. Is fanon a problem in the Clone Wars articles? I only really work on obscure things, so I don't see much of it usually. Holocron Greatholocron (Complain) 21:15, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
  11. Meh. CC7567 (talk) 02:10, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
  12. <saxtonite>It has different doohickies! Different doohickies make it a different class!</saxtonite> Seriously, though, keep and despeculatize the name. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 03:13, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
  13. Keep, there have been weirder things. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:01, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
    Keep, but rename to "space gunship". BillNye 09:45, March 23, 2011 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: User not eligible for voting privileges -- Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:35, March 23, 2011 (UTC))
  14. Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:00, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I'll mention the Episode Guide for Citadel Rescue does have the following entry:

  • "The Plo's Bros gunship that rescues the strike team from Lola Sayu is designated a "space gunship", with a sealed cabin and search spotlights mounted in the gunnery sockets." DD97Which bear is best? 17:59, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the article to [[space gunship]] to make it less fanonish. 1358 (Talk) 22:01, March 25, 2011 (UTC)