Forum:TC:Starfighter carrier

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Starfighter carrier

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 Unanimous consensus to remove the article, no consensus to delete or redirect, defaulting to redirect. Grunny (talk) 02:26, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Starfighter carrier (talk - history - links - logs)

More VT fanon. The quote behind the article is "Super Star Destroyers sometimes served as mobile repair bases, starfighter carriers, or communications ships (carrying dozens of HoloNet transceivers), but most served the standard Super Star Destroyer role of sector command ship and mobile headquarters." It provides no evidence these are unique ships, rather than run-of-the-mill SSD classes assigned to a different role than usual. jSarek 07:51, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Keep

Delete

Delete. jSarek 07:51, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  1. Chack Jadson (Talk) 13:57, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
    What's next? Starfighter carrier fighter? -- 1358 (Talk) 14:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Kill it dead. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 14:02, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  3. This also reminds me of that stupid Police BARC speeder. 9_9 JangFett (Talk) 14:18, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 14:42, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
    Uhhh... per Jon. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:29, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Cylka-talk- 20:54, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Heh. Aren't you ashamed of yourself yet, VT? Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:48, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  7. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 21:49, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  8. I'm still amazed we have stuff like this floating around. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:11, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
    Exterminate. Trak Nar Ramble on 07:59, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  9. It is an article about a role in which a Star Destroyer can serve. Which acknowledges it is just a role, and then proceeds to treat it as a separate class of ship. Horrifying. Havac 21:44, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  10. We need to perform a proper purge of all of these articles. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 21:46, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Imperialles 07:48, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect, I dunno, somewhere

  1. Sorry, but this is a legitimate in-universe term and should either have its own article or point somewhere. Since we have the carrier article, might as well point it there. Before you crucify me, look at my comments. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:03, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Per Ataru; redirect to carrier. No crucifixion necessary; you make a good point, and as we should all remember, redirects are cheap. jSarek 00:39, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Per jSarek. I think they only cost something like credits0.05 per dozen. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 00:46, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  4. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:03, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  5. ASDF1239Chiss Ascendancy-DISCUSSION- 01:04, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 07:35, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Sleep does wonders for voting decisions. Trak Nar Ramble on 07:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Redirect to carrier. Grunny (talk) 09:11, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Carrier. Nayayen—TALK 09:57, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Carrier makes sense. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:24, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per Ataru, and I would swear on it that I have read the term in canonical sources describing ships such as the Venator-class. Graestan(Talk) 18:06, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Carrier makes sense. -- 1358 (Talk) 18:09, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This article is garbage in its original status, but why not keep/rewrite it into something useful? It should be a general type of ship article like cruiser or frigate. Since we have a carrier article, redirect it there to avoid needless redundancy. I believe that X-Wing: Solo Command does refer to a type of a ship as a Quasar Fire starfighter carrier so the term does have some canonical basis. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:03, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • A quick search only revealed "Quasar Fire-class bulk cruiser", "Quasar Fire-class starfighter transport", and "Quasar Fire carrier", all of which are probably this ship. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 22:13, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, bah, then it is my memory acting up again. :S I was remembering the last one. Feh, I still think it's a legitimate redirect even if the current article is junk. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:31, April 19, 2010 (UTC)