Forum:TC:The Colbert Report

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:The Colbert Report

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 no consensus, kept. jSarek 11:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Colbert Report (talk - history - links - logs)

Move to List of references to Star Wars in television and delete. Does not warrant an article of its own, especially of this length. No one will remember this in a few years. Graestan(Talk) 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge and delete

  1. Graestan(Talk) 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Assuming the content will actually be merged. MauserComlink 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd just go ahead and do it yourself now, if you have a specific idea of what's to be kept. I sure as heck wouldn't be keeping the full content; most of it is pretty extraneous. Graestan(Talk) 19:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Television shows that have actually nothing to do with Star Wars except a Star Wars-related episode or similar should not have their own articles in my opinion. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Darth Culator (Talk) 18:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Hargh. Chack Jadson (Talk) 18:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 19:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. 9_9 Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Sadly. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Grunny (Talk) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. If anything, the Green Screen Challenge should have its own article, but not the Report itself. Havac 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. Although, I do agree with jSarek. Why do we keep bloating lists and then deleting them? — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 20:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please point me to an instance where a list has been bloated with TCed/merged information and then deleted. There is no such plan, I assure you. Lists are mostly TCed because they are rendered unnecessary by categories. Graestan(Talk) 15:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 02:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  16. Per Havac.- Esjs(Talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  17. I believe I brought this up a couple of years back. Purge it already. --Imperialles 23:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  18. I would support either merging into the TV references or creating a separate Green Screen Challenge article. Otherwise, phooey to you, Colbert. Enochf 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 17:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. We should be splitting these lists up instead of continuing to bloat them. We give notable fan works that have been self-produced by fans a page of their own; why should fan works made by entertainment professionals in the context of an existing production get any less? As for the idea that "No one will remember this in a few years," isn't it our job to record and provide information related to Star Wars precisely BECAUSE no one can or should remember everything? jSarek 09:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per jSarek. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. I completely disagree with the initial deletion argument. It's our job to document notable real-world events like this. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. It is the very length of the article that shows it needs to have its own page. Every little star wars mention gets added to the List of Star Wars ref. page. Now we have some people saying this should be merged, but have the content chopped. Just because he makes a lot of references doesn't mean we shouldn't note them! This encyclopedia is suppose to strive for complete-ness, and we have people saying we should cut out content! Like him or not, Colbert mentions starwars regularly enough to warrant his own article. And the green screen challenge was epic enough to have ILM and GL himself participate! That alone warrants its own article. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per the above. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Could be trimmed/refocused, but a flat-out merge would not be ideal. -LtNOWIS 00:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. See Family Guy: Blue Harvest for an example of an article on a program external to SW that survives, though clearly larger. Btw, Colbert might actually pay enough attention to us to notice if we blow this article out of the water, and then what might happen? :P -- Riffsyphon1024 04:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Funny you mention that. He just did a small section on his Wikipedia article on last night's show. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Pretty notable to have George himself there. --Eyrezer 08:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. It appears to me as though there have been enough SW references made as to warrant its own article. I see our list of SW references as a place to add singular mentions. Cylka-talk- 07:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion