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 delete. --Imperialles 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Stud (talk - history - links - logs)
Pure gameplay mechanics from a non-canon game. Seeing as other gameplay mechanics articles, such as RPG stats and skills, have been deleted in the past, this should suffer the same fate. Please do not vote for merging this article with the various LEGO game articles; the information is already present. --Imperialles 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Arguments for keeping
Now, I may be biased, but how is this any different than the appearance of credits in KotOR? Are they not gameplay mechanics as well? If that's the case, I understand that Galactic Credit Standard is its own entity, but should the appearance list include video games (like KotOR, EaW, and the like)? And why am I being so rhetoric? Jorrel
Fraajic 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno...I would vote merge if there was such an option. Per Fraajic. Unit 8311 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's a legitimate non-canon IU element. Thefourdotelipsis 22:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Non-canon, but still IU and associated with an officially licensed company. Besides, it has a non-canon tag already, so one would have to be pretty dumb to think that studs are canonical. KEJ 10:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per everyone.—Darthtyler
Talk 07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Arguments for deletion
- See nomination reason. --Imperialles 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per Imp's reasoning in the nomination. Not much more I can say about it. Greyman(Paratus) 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, what they ^ said. - JMAS 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, are you kidding? I'm all for the silly side of hyperinclusionism, but come on. Credits are everywhere. Studs exist only in one very silly video game. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Three slightly silly video games. And they're integral. Thefourdotelipsis 08:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per Imp. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why the hell was this not speedied? Havac 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, even Culator votes to kill this one. This is extremely delete-worthy. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC) - Tastes like chicken. Jorrel Fraajic 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I usually vote delete anyway. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Toss it per Imperialles.--Goodwood
(For the Rebellion!) 06:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC) - Redirect either to Han Solo or Harrison Ford.—Graestan(This party's over) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per Imp. Zakor1138 00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Hmm. I was under the impression that "game mechanics" meant that a sentence like, "These studs would appear after the destruction of items around different locales" would not be allowed, not that the item itself was game mechanics. Now, the different values may be game mechanics, (and as such removed), but is the item itself a game mechanic? If so, I'd like to bring up the credits thing once more. However, if my understanding is incorrect, I'll change my vote, or eat my hat. Jorrel 
Fraajic 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Also note that the respective LEGO video game articles no longer are as lengthy and game guide-y, and thus the respective information Imp was talking about is no longer within any of the three articles. Jorrel Fraajic 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)- Your example merely acknowledges further information regarding studs in the video games; there is no distinction between the game mechanic-ness described in your example and what's described in the article. Yes, the item itself is a game mechanic—it exists solely as a gameplay element used to unlock certain playable characters, etc. Studs aren't meant to simulate an economy (as is the case with credits), they're merely a means by which players can progress in the game. I don't think you sincerely believe control over Grand Moff Tarkin is supposed to be a tradeable commodity worth x amount of studs. Additionally, the information regarding studs has been re-added to all the game articles, as it describes a central gameplay element. --Imperialles 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- True... but, what about when you use the studs collected to purchase a vehicle? ... Nevermind. I'm pretty much (at this point) fighting for the sake of fighting. Sigh. Lost causes really aren't my thing, eh? Hat eaten, pride swallowed. And good job re-adding the information. Jorrel Fraajic 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- True... but, what about when you use the studs collected to purchase a vehicle? ... Nevermind. I'm pretty much (at this point) fighting for the sake of fighting. Sigh. Lost causes really aren't my thing, eh? Hat eaten, pride swallowed. And good job re-adding the information. Jorrel
- Your example merely acknowledges further information regarding studs in the video games; there is no distinction between the game mechanic-ness described in your example and what's described in the article. Yes, the item itself is a game mechanic—it exists solely as a gameplay element used to unlock certain playable characters, etc. Studs aren't meant to simulate an economy (as is the case with credits), they're merely a means by which players can progress in the game. I don't think you sincerely believe control over Grand Moff Tarkin is supposed to be a tradeable commodity worth x amount of studs. Additionally, the information regarding studs has been re-added to all the game articles, as it describes a central gameplay element. --Imperialles 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)