Forum:TC:The Empire strikes back

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:The Empire strikes back
This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. JangFett (Talk) 22:34, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

The Empire strikes back (talk - history - links - logs)

Relax, this isn't the film up for deletion. Rather, it's a purported saying that comes from the title of that film. The problem? It claims to be an in-universe saying, but look closer. The phrase is only "used" twice; both occasions are quoted in the article, and neither matches the title of the article word for word. On top of that, the article is full of assumptions and speculation. This appears to be just a case where a few authors saw fit to reference the name of the film, similar to the more common comments by Han about shooting first. Bottom line: this isn't notable or legitimate enough for its own article. —MJ— Holocomm 04:10, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back

  1. As nominator. Title is a valid redirect, but there's absolutely no reason here to keep the page history. —MJ— Holocomm 04:10, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
  2. That this isn't a redirect to the film is a disservice to our readers, especially because claiming that it's an in-universe statement is extrapolation to the point of speculation (ie, a pretty big stretch from the facts). Menkooroo (talk) 04:18, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 04:28, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
    LOST-Malachi (talk) 04:32, September 4, 2013 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: User is banned -- JangFett (Talk) 21:55, September 9, 2013 (UTC))
  4. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 04:52, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
    "...the Trash Compactor will always strike back. That I promise you." jSarek (talk) 06:16, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
    JangFett (Talk) 13:27, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
    Seems to me that 2 individuals happened to say phrases that were similar, and we ended up with this article. Much as I love the Pellaeon quote, there's no evidence this is an actual saying. Supreme Emperor (talk) 20:49, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 22:02, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:41, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Keep article and redirect to Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back

  1. This makes more sense to me. JangFett (Talk) 11:29, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
  2. - Esjs(Talk) 15:16, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
  3. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 15:25, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
  4. I have no desire to remove site history for no reason, and if some author eventually decides to make it canon that this IS an in-universe saying, well, we'll have an article ready to build upon with a simple revert. jSarek (talk)
  5. This makes much more sense, IMO.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 00:12, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
  6. ~SavageBOB sig 16:16, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Seems to me that 2 individuals happened to say phrases that were similar, and we ended up with this article. Much as I love the Pellaeon quote, there's no evidence this is an actual saying. Supreme Emperor (talk) 06:19, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Trip391 (talk) 06:24, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Per jSarek. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:28, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per jSarek. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:12, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
  11. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 22:17, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
  12. 1358 (Talk) 09:43, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Keep

Discussion

  • As with here, I would like to request the voting option clarifies itself. One cannot properly "delete and redirect" something. I presume you mean "Delete and merge," which is something different. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:30, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
    • Nix that. I mean that I presume you intend for a simple "Redirect." There would be no deleting involved, so the voting option should not include the term "Delete." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:32, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
      • I think this might be a rare case where it actually makes sense, since MJ wants the page history deleted, too. Menkooroo (talk) 06:07, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
        • In that case, the correct wording would be "Delete and merge." You can't both delete and redirect something. "Redirect" specifically means you're not deleting the article. We've fought wars over whether something should be outright deleted or kept as a redirect, which is why this deserves to be perfectly clarified in the voting option. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:38, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
        • Unless you mean to say that you want to first delete the article and its page history and then recreate it as a redirect. I don't know why you want to do that, but I guess that's the only way "Delete and redirect" makes sense. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:45, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
          • Is deleting the page history without deleting the page itself even possible? Even so, MJ says "there's absolutely no reason here to keep the page history", but I say there's absolutely no reason here to delete the page history. My solution would have been to just change the page into the redirect; no TC process needed (unless reverts occurred). - Esjs(Talk) 18:55, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
            • I believe it is as long as a user recreates a deleted page rather than an admin restoring a deleted page. But I agree that if you're going to keep something as a redirect, you might as well just keep the edit history for the record. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:42, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
  • What I mean is to delete the page and then recreate it as a redirect with no history, because the page history is useless for the redirect's purpose (i.e. the current subject of the article is essentially unrelated to the proposed redirect target). Does that make sense? —MJ— Training Room 00:02, September 5, 2013 (UTC)