Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Ploo
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 Insufficient input for formal consensus, but I'm going to redirect it to Ploo system anyway on the basis that it's been clearly determined to be fanon with no objections, and known fanon doesn't need a TC discussion. —MJ— Holocomm 03:21, November 28, 2012 (UTC)
Ploo (talk - history - links - logs)
I suspect the pages Ploo, Ploo I and Ploo II to be huge fanon. The source is Star Wars Kids but this magazine is for children, it is simplistic and doesn't create anything in the expended universe. The worlds Ploo II and Ploo IV were mentinoned after the release of Episode 1 (from species from the movie). But Star Wars Kids was canceled before the release of the movie. Above all, the pages were created by an unregistered user who used to do fanon edits. Hk 47 (talk) 19:51, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
Delete
- Hk 47 (talk) 22:03, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea of redirecting Ploo but what about Ploo I and Ploo II ? Hk 47 (talk) 12:37, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming you mean Ploo I and Ploo III (since Ploo II is known to exist), at this point they should be discussed separately in their own thread(s). You could combine the two into one thread to save time and effort, but since votes have already been cast here, they should not be combined into this thread. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 05:59, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea of redirecting Ploo but what about Ploo I and Ploo II ? Hk 47 (talk) 12:37, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
Keep and redirect to Ploo system
- As I noted in the discussion below, maintaining this article as a named planet is most likely fanon, but the Atlas Online Companion does list "Ploo" in its directory of system names as an abbreviation for the Ploo system. I reason that this makes "Ploo" a likely search candidate, and I believe it would therefore be more appropriate to maintain this article as a redirect to the Ploo system article, rather than deleting it. This is a vote to keep the article and turn it into a redirect. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:07, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Tope.--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 05:02, November 10, 2012 (UTC) - Keep and redirect. Thanks for the Kids confirmation, JMAS. Menkooroo (talk) 03:30, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
- It seems like this is the best choice then. I also changed the voting header to reflect what people are actually voting for. —MJ— Comlink 03:50, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Seems the best option. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 06:54, November 11, 2012 (UTC) - Since this got settled. Corellian Premier
All along the watchtower 16:39, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Judging from the Murk Lundi article, one of our FAs, we know that Ploo II exists in canon, per Jedi Apprentice Special Edition: The Followers. I don't know what the deal is with a possible mention in the Star Wars Kids magazine, but it's possible The Followers makes indirect mention of Ploo and its supposed three other moons, in which case keeping these articles with proper sourcing would be appropriate. It would be good if someone with access to The Followers can check up on this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:50, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
- The Followers makes no mention, indirect or otherwise, of anything Ploo except the Ploo Sector and Ploo II. —MJ— Comlink 05:18, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, MJ. In that case, I figure it's probably a matter of someone assuming that because there was a Ploo II and Ploo IV, that there must be a Ploo, a Ploo I, and a Ploo III. I agree that it's extremely unlikely these came from the Star Wars Kids magazine. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:36, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- The planets "Ploo" and "Plooriod" are both mentioned in the The Essential Atlas Online Companion and are situated to be in the Ploo sector. Also Jedipedia claims that some info about the planet is in the The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia. Clone Commander Lee Talk 09:15, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- In CSWE, there isn't an extra entry for Ploo, but one for Ploo sector. It mentions Ploo system, Ploo II and Ploo IV. Nahdar Vebb (talk) 10:38, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- To respond to Lee, the Atlas Online Companion only lists systems, not planets. So its mentions of "Ploo" and "Plooriod" would refer to the Ploo system and Plooriod system, respectively, rather than specific planets. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:39, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- In CSWE, there isn't an extra entry for Ploo, but one for Ploo sector. It mentions Ploo system, Ploo II and Ploo IV. Nahdar Vebb (talk) 10:38, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- The planets "Ploo" and "Plooriod" are both mentioned in the The Essential Atlas Online Companion and are situated to be in the Ploo sector. Also Jedipedia claims that some info about the planet is in the The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia. Clone Commander Lee Talk 09:15, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, MJ. In that case, I figure it's probably a matter of someone assuming that because there was a Ploo II and Ploo IV, that there must be a Ploo, a Ploo I, and a Ploo III. I agree that it's extremely unlikely these came from the Star Wars Kids magazine. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:36, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- The Followers makes no mention, indirect or otherwise, of anything Ploo except the Ploo Sector and Ploo II. —MJ— Comlink 05:18, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
- So how about a signature list for those who want this deleted and those who don't? Winterz (talk) 22:50, October 29, 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with opening up voting (which is usually handled by the creator of the TC thread). However, I feel like it should be pointed out that we still don't know with absolute certainty that these articles weren't mentioned in one of the Star Wars Kids magazines. It's unlikely, but not impossible. The conservative thing to do would be to keep the articles with the "Confirm" template posted at the top until someone legitimately goes through each issue and determines whether they're in there or not. But if we want to be less forgiving and start deleting, then I would recommend actually keeping this article, since "Ploo" is listed in the Atlas Online Companion's directory, and turn it into a redirect for the Ploo system, since it would be a likely search candidate. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:22, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I used to think like you. I noticed inconsistencies with this article long time ago but I kept a doubt. However, when I thought to look at its creation and when I saw it was created by a regular of fanons I was convinced. Hk 47 (talk) 00:42, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Well if you don't agree with what Toprawa said then leave some voting options here. After all, that's the whole point of the Trash Compactor. Winterz (talk) 01:03, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, let's see. Hk 47 (talk) 22:03, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Now, I don't have every every edition of Star Wars Kids, I do have access to copies of most of them and I after having skimmed through them, I see no motion anywhere. Just the erroneous linking of Plooriod III and Ploo III. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 03:59, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- So are you saying that the magazine does mention Ploo III, but not Ploo or Ploo I? —MJ— Council Chambers 17:47, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- No, no. In SW Kids Magazine 9, for the Fluggrian entry in the "Who is That Alien?" feature, it says that Fluggrians are from Plooriod IV in the Ploo sector. That is it. There is no mention at all of Ploo, Ploo II or Ploo III. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 03:24, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
- No, no. In SW Kids Magazine 9, for the Fluggrian entry in the "Who is That Alien?" feature, it says that Fluggrians are from Plooriod IV in the Ploo sector. That is it. There is no mention at all of Ploo, Ploo II or Ploo III. - JMAS
- So are you saying that the magazine does mention Ploo III, but not Ploo or Ploo I? —MJ— Council Chambers 17:47, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Now, I don't have every every edition of Star Wars Kids, I do have access to copies of most of them and I after having skimmed through them, I see no motion anywhere. Just the erroneous linking of Plooriod III and Ploo III. - JMAS
- Ok, let's see. Hk 47 (talk) 22:03, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Well if you don't agree with what Toprawa said then leave some voting options here. After all, that's the whole point of the Trash Compactor. Winterz (talk) 01:03, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I used to think like you. I noticed inconsistencies with this article long time ago but I kept a doubt. However, when I thought to look at its creation and when I saw it was created by a regular of fanons I was convinced. Hk 47 (talk) 00:42, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with opening up voting (which is usually handled by the creator of the TC thread). However, I feel like it should be pointed out that we still don't know with absolute certainty that these articles weren't mentioned in one of the Star Wars Kids magazines. It's unlikely, but not impossible. The conservative thing to do would be to keep the articles with the "Confirm" template posted at the top until someone legitimately goes through each issue and determines whether they're in there or not. But if we want to be less forgiving and start deleting, then I would recommend actually keeping this article, since "Ploo" is listed in the Atlas Online Companion's directory, and turn it into a redirect for the Ploo system, since it would be a likely search candidate. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:22, October 30, 2012 (UTC)