Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Rothana battleship

< Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion

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 keep.—Silly Dan (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rothana battleship (talk - history - links - logs)

Keep

  1. "Battleship" and "destroyer" are different designations, which are used for two different ships here. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. You don't understand, they were explicitly referred to in the Revised Core Rulebook. The image is just a bts possible look for either of them. VT-16 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yay for hyperinclusionism! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. I think all that can be done to distinguish them from each other needs to be done (but may have already). Seeing as they are to different ships, they deserve their own entires. Wildyoda 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Different ships, different articles. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. A destroyer and a battleship are not the same thing. Having similar text in similar entries from the same source does not mean that two separate items should be merged. Havac 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. I came to rescue you. Good job. Cutch 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

  1. This page needs to be either deleted, or preferably merged with the Rothana Destroyer page. They both say almost the exact same thing, have the same sources, use the same picture, and seem to be referring to the same ship. --Darth Windu 10:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Delete

Comments

Here's the problem though. You are saying that they are seperate ships, that's fine. The problem though is from looking at the articles, aside from the name there is no difference. Before the comments posted here, I could not distinguish between the two ships, hence the request to merge. VT-16 if they are referred to seperately thats fine, but no mentioned is actually made of this in either article. How about they are just merged together in a new entry called something like 'Rothana Warship/s'? --Darth Windu 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, there are many articles that are about almost exactly the same thing (a series of stormtrooper names for instance, where each of them died in the same accident). VT-16 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well can we at least make the pages a bit different then? The two pages are exactly the same with only the words 'destroyer' and 'battleship' swapped. --Darth Windu 10:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine with me. VT-16 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)