Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Three Jedi Masters
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 No consensus. Default to keep. Grunny (talk) 00:46, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
Three Jedi Masters (talk - history - links - logs)
While I was splitting this article, I realized there was a problem: Where are all the links that lead here going to go? The way I see it, there are three options, to just delete the article and redirect to Unidentified Jedi Master 1, 2, or 3; delete the articles I made and just leave it as is, or turn this page into a disambiguation page (But with a different name probably). NaruHina Talk 
20:04, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Delete this article, redirect to a splinter article
Delete the splinter articles
- I see no way to distinguish between the three. Say we have three unidentified clone troopers in a squad in a TCW book which are visually indistinguishable. They can be treated individually because, being in a book, they each have clearly defined actions that can be used to distinguish them from each other. The same is not true here. There is absolutely no way to tell these three Jedi apart either visually (unless their lightsaber colors differ; I seem to recall that they were all the same) or by actions (which vary depending on the player's actions), so what one person thinks is Unidentified Jedi Master 1 could be interpreted by another user as Unidentified Jedi Master 2 and by someone else as Unidentified Jedi Master 3. Simplest way to avoid the confusion? Keep 'em all in one article. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 16:28, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that's not the case with these guys. They have visual distinctions. For example, 1 uses a double-bladed lightsaber. I actually just got my copy of BF2 back today, so I'll add that later. NaruHina Talk
17:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- 1 is the only one with a graphical difference, with its dual-blade. The other two are just Jar'Kai wielders. NaruHina Talk 18:52, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any way at all to distinguish the other two from each other? If so, then I could support keeping the individual articles and making this a disambig, but if not, then my vote stands as it is now, as the two Jar'Kai wielders would have to be in one article to prevent confusion, and it makes no sense to put just those two together—they should be all separate or all together IMO. (P.S. It's been 2 1/2 years since I had access to this level, so my memories of the level are a bit fuzzy.) —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:11, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- There is not, unfortunately. They both use the same character model. NaruHina Talk
16:54, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Then my vote stands so as to avoid confusion, as stated above. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 17:18, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
- There is not, unfortunately. They both use the same character model. NaruHina Talk
- Is there any way at all to distinguish the other two from each other? If so, then I could support keeping the individual articles and making this a disambig, but if not, then my vote stands as it is now, as the two Jar'Kai wielders would have to be in one article to prevent confusion, and it makes no sense to put just those two together—they should be all separate or all together IMO. (P.S. It's been 2 1/2 years since I had access to this level, so my memories of the level are a bit fuzzy.) —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:11, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- 1 is the only one with a graphical difference, with its dual-blade. The other two are just Jar'Kai wielders. NaruHina Talk
- Actually, that's not the case with these guys. They have visual distinctions. For example, 1 uses a double-bladed lightsaber. I actually just got my copy of BF2 back today, so I'll add that later. NaruHina Talk
Turn this article into a disambiguation page
Keep all articles
- Placing a {{Disambig}} (a la Solo twins) would not be all that bad. But since I argued for this option (Thank you)... - Esjs(Talk) 16:47, March 28, 2010 (UTC).
Comments
- Other ideas are welcome, and if someone could find a distinguishing characteristic for each splinter article, that would be great. (I simply hate numbering articles) NaruHina Talk 20:04, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a voting option of Keep this article and individuals' (splinter) articles. It seems that as they acted as a group, and if more information becomes available on the individuals their articles could be updated. And perhaps instead of 1, 2, and 3... they could be (first of three), (second of three), and (third of three). Sounds a little Borg-ish, I know... but it's maybe better than just numbers. - Esjs(Talk) 04:35, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
- That's option 3. I do rather like the numbering idea, but if I get a chance to go through that level, I'll take note of a distinguishing feature to use as that. If I don't, that's probably what we'll go with. Thanks for the idea. NaruHina Talk 18:21, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, to me "turn into disambiguation page" is not the same as just "keep all", because you're changing purpose of the page. That isn't what I was looking for. - Esjs(Talk) 17:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I thought you meant something like the Solo Twins article, which pretty much keeps the article as it was before it was TC'd and turned into disambig, but just put the templete at the bottom. That's what I meant by a disambig page. NaruHina Talk 18:47, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I thought you meant something like the Solo Twins article, which pretty much keeps the article as it was before it was TC'd and turned into disambig, but just put the templete at the bottom. That's what I meant by a disambig page. NaruHina Talk
- Sorry, to me "turn into disambiguation page" is not the same as just "keep all", because you're changing purpose of the page. That isn't what I was looking for. - Esjs(Talk) 17:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- That's option 3. I do rather like the numbering idea, but if I get a chance to go through that level, I'll take note of a distinguishing feature to use as that. If I don't, that's probably what we'll go with. Thanks for the idea. NaruHina Talk
- I'd like to see a voting option of Keep this article and individuals' (splinter) articles. It seems that as they acted as a group, and if more information becomes available on the individuals their articles could be updated. And perhaps instead of 1, 2, and 3... they could be (first of three), (second of three), and (third of three). Sounds a little Borg-ish, I know... but it's maybe better than just numbers. - Esjs(Talk) 04:35, March 26, 2010 (UTC)