Forum:TC:Rogue Leader

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Rogue Leader

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. Graestan(Talk) 02:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rogue Leader (talk - history - links - logs)

This TC thread covers any and all squadron callsigns, such as but not limited to Rogue Leader, Wraith Eleven, Rogue Two, etc.

It occurs to the thoughtful mind that all information that could reasonably be contained in such an article could be found in a complete article on the squadron and the individuals that have held said callsign. It would therefore be much more beneficial to delete all these and simply place the information in the respective character/organization articles.

Delete

  1. In keeping with the idea of having a few complete articles rather than a bunch of redundant stubs. Redirect Rogue Leader, Wraith Leader, etc. to the squadrons. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I would actually say Rogue Leader could probably survive, but anything else is just too merge-able. They're not significant enough to have their own articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete, except for "Leader" articles

  1. Rogue Leader is something of a prestigeous title among the New Republic/Galactic Alliance starfighter corps. -- SFH 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep these articles

  1. Keep, at least as disambigs. If someone wants to find out which pilots flew as Rogue Nine, they shouldn't have to read through the entire history of Rogue Squadron to find out. jSarek 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's not use our horrible Rogue Squadron article as a reason to keep these, when there are two other articles that show two different ways of organizing the callsigns without pointless stubs. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Both of those articles just further my conviction that these serve better as disambig pages than redirects. jSarek 23:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Also, Rogue Squadron is probably the most known starfighter squadron (save for maybe Red Squadron), and it's the one that's got the horrible formatting, so it fits perfectly as an example. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per jSarek. (A few, like Stardog One and Blue Wing are the only known names for canonical characters, but I assume those articles aren't included in this VFD.) —Silly Dan (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course not. These are referring to the titles, not the individuals. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per JSarek. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 22:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per jSarek. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per all. Unit 8311 10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Conditional keep. Only as disambigs. If you're going to have them as anything but disambigs, consider this a hearty delete. Thefourdotelipsis 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Conditional keep. Extremely per Fourdot. I knew there had to be some use for these pages, and as we hear the callsigns in the movies and read them in the novels without always having the individuals identified, this is absolutely perfect. Graestan(Talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Conditional keep. Also per 4dot. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. KEJ 17:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Massive opposition to deleting. Squadron callsigns have as much place as articles as do any other titles. More, since they're frequently the sole references used to characters, they're often used in dialogue, and the individuals holding them frequently change, meriting having the articles list their holders. To delete them or merge them into squadron articles is utterly inane. I don't see any reason to do this other than that Ataru doesn't want to make articles to clear redlinks for his Wraith projects. Havac 10. 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Greyman(Talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Keep, but not as a disambig; we have plenty of articles on non-tangible things and this shouldn't be any different. Info should be on squadron articles, pilot articles, and callsign articles. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing (You're all clear kid!)(Now let's blow this thing and go home!) 15:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. Per 4dot NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 02:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. These are extremely helpful when reading the Rogue Squadron series. :P JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Keep. Squadron callsigns are just as noteworthy and deserving of coverage as are aliases. And some are quite prestigious.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Per jSarek. - Lord Hydronium 05:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Ozzel 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Most of these don't exist anyway. Wraith Leader, Rakehell Leader, Twin Suns Leader, Wraith Two, etc. AFAIK, Rogue Squadron pilots and Wraith Eleven are notable exceptions. Either way, let's make up our minds. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to JS above, if the Rogue Squadron article was done the right way, everyone who held the distinction of Rogue Nine, etc., would be organized under their own section, the information from which could then be easily ascertained. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Compromise suggestion: What about making articles for Rogue Squadron callsigns, etc.? That would allow us to link all the callsigns without needing to "read through the entire article", but still avoid large numbers of pointless stubs. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't like it, if for the simple fact that we already have names for the articles. And since when are stubs pointless, if they serve a point (showing who was under what callsign)? JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Though I agree with Havac's Keep reasoning, his comment about Ataru was unwarranted.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)