| Revision as of 21:12, 19 July 2006 editChaser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,934 edits reply to Angus MCLellan about reliability of sources← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:47, 31 January 2023 edit undoSheepLinterBot (talk | contribs)Bots50,297 editsm fix font tags linter errorsTag: AWB | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep'''. ]]] 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| The article is just a radom list of star wars technology with no useful infromation and it also needs to renamend. It would just be easier(and beter) to delete this article and start over form scratch. ] 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | The article is just a radom list of star wars technology with no useful infromation and it also needs to renamend. It would just be easier(and beter) to delete this article and start over form scratch. ] 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 4: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Keep''' if and only if it's rewritten like ] per Fabricationary. It can be an interesting topic if done right. -- ] 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' if and only if it's rewritten like ] per Fabricationary. It can be an interesting topic if done right. -- ] 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' useful collection, cannot be merged into Star Wars --] 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' useful collection, cannot be merged into Star Wars --] 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Very week keep''' needs to be expanded greatly. ''']''' ] 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Very week keep''' needs to be expanded greatly. ''']''' ] 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *<s>'''Weak delete'''.</s> I'd love to see an article like ] here, but as it stands now it should really be called ], and we already have other lists and category schemes serving the same purpose as this. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | *<s>'''Weak delete'''.</s> I'd love to see an article like ] here, but as it stands now it should really be called ], and we already have other lists and category schemes serving the same purpose as this. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :The new additions are a start towards making this article more like what I want to see. Hence, I'm changing my opinion to '''keep'''. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | :The new additions are a start towards making this article more like what I want to see. Hence, I'm changing my opinion to '''keep'''. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 15: | Line 22: | ||
| * '''Delete'''. Its nothing to do with physics. It's just another random Star Wars list. -- ] | * '''Delete'''. Its nothing to do with physics. It's just another random Star Wars list. -- ] | ||
| *'''Keep''' per if enough effort is put into the article, it will be fine ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per if enough effort is put into the article, it will be fine ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' or are we going to have ], ], ], ], etc. etc. hopefully these will all be red links and it seems that the discussion of why fiction needn't follow the laws of physics is not really encyclopedic. It's called science-"fiction" for a reason. ] 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' or are we going to have ], ], ], ], etc. etc. hopefully these will all be red links and it seems that the discussion of why fiction needn't follow the laws of physics is not really encyclopedic. It's called science-"fiction" for a reason. ] 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Comment:''' True, it is fiction, but the average movie viewer probably doesn't have a whole lot of physics knowledge and may not know what's fiction and what's fact. Perhaps |
:'''Comment:''' True, it is fiction, but the average movie viewer probably doesn't have a whole lot of physics knowledge and may not know what's fiction and what's fact. Perhaps Chaser's suggestion of a ] article would be a better way to go, but that can be discussed outside of AfD. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' with added phenomena. These are both extraordinarily popular sci-fi dynasties, but if there are any more of these articles, it might be worth creating a ] article or the like and merging all of them. Some things (like sound in space), are common problems.--] ] 11:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' with added phenomena. These are both extraordinarily popular sci-fi dynasties, but if there are any more of these articles, it might be worth creating a ] article or the like and merging all of them. Some things (like sound in space), are common problems.--] ] 11:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' fancruft. ] 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' fancruft. ] 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep''' per everyone above. Valid topic. --] 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' per everyone above. Valid topic. --] 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 34: | ||
| Also, if we deleted every article which was interesting to a niche audience, we'd delete half of wikipedia. Personally, I'm not a Star Wars fan (see this article for reasons why ) so I know the repeated insinuation made in this discussion that not only fanboys are interested in keeping this article. ] 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | Also, if we deleted every article which was interesting to a niche audience, we'd delete half of wikipedia. Personally, I'm not a Star Wars fan (see this article for reasons why ) so I know the repeated insinuation made in this discussion that not only fanboys are interested in keeping this article. ] 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' fails twice, firstly ] (unverifiable, read those refs and weep; no, Virginia, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source) and secondly ] (and this is original research as the absence of references shows). Whether it's starwarscruft and thus fails ] is more a matter of opinion, but from where I'm sitting it most assuredly is. ] ] 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' fails twice, firstly ] (unverifiable, read those refs and weep; no, Virginia, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source) and secondly ] (and this is original research as the absence of references shows). Whether it's starwarscruft and thus fails ] is more a matter of opinion, but from where I'm sitting it most assuredly is. ] ] 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **It's a fair criticism that one of websites don't meet the letter of WP:V, but I think it is reliable nonetheless. The ], source for two of the three phenomena I added, are written by an astrophysics postdoc who has (co-)written that ''were'' subject to editorial review. What's more, the homepage for the Commentaries notes that they were "greatly enhanced as a result of debate and discussion involving many correspondents". In any case, this article now meets WP:V far better than many wikipedia articles that have '''no''' sources. The other source seems to be part of the Discovery Channel, as you'll discover when you click on the link in the top corner. I think that's certainly reliable.--] ] 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | **It's a fair criticism that one of websites don't meet the letter of WP:V, but I think it is reliable nonetheless. The ], source for two of the three phenomena I added, are written by an astrophysics postdoc who has (co-)written that ''were'' subject to editorial review. What's more, the homepage for the Commentaries notes that they were "greatly enhanced as a result of debate and discussion involving many correspondents". In any case, this article now meets WP:V far better than many wikipedia articles that have '''no''' sources. The other source seems to be part of the Discovery Channel, as you'll discover when you click on the link in the top corner. I think that's certainly reliable.--] ] 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 19:47, 31 January 2023
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Grandmasterka 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Physics and Star Wars
The article is just a radom list of star wars technology with no useful infromation and it also needs to renamend. It would just be easier(and beter) to delete this article and start over form scratch. Scott3 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, provided that it is rewritten. Physics and Star Trek is a pretty cool article, but currently Physics and Star Wars is just a glorified list of disjoined items. This could potentially be an interesting article. Fabricationary 02:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if and only if it's rewritten like Physics and Star Trek per Fabricationary. It can be an interesting topic if done right. -- Gogo Dodo 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep useful collection, cannot be merged into Star Wars --Rye1967 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very week keep needs to be expanded greatly. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete.I'd love to see an article like Physics and Star Trek here, but as it stands now it should really be called List of Star Wars technology, and we already have other lists and category schemes serving the same purpose as this. BryanG 06:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The new additions are a start towards making this article more like what I want to see. Hence, I'm changing my opinion to keep. BryanG 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak keepif someone here volunteers to write article such as Physics and Star Trek otherwisedeleteAlso, adding those devices to Category:Star Wars devices could fulfill the aim of the current article. Lurker 10:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Create an article entitled Physics and science fiction as suggested elsewhere in this discussion, move content into it. Until this is done, I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. Lurker 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Over time, it will surely get re-written on lines of Physics and Star Trek. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but Move some/most of the current content to Technology in Star Wars, Stubify the Physics article and Slap a big Rewrite Needed notice on both articles. There are certainly enough "star wars technical physics info" (the Ewok genocide and whatnot) and star wars fans out there to bring this up to the level of the Physics and Star Trek article i.e. actually about physics and star wars rather than the current technology listcruft which has little or nothing to do with discussion of physics Bwithh 14:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep—Rewrite, Rename Rewrite in methods per above, make the article more of an article than a list. It should also be renamed in some way unless it can actually discuss the relationship between the two, and not Physics in Star Wars. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Its nothing to do with physics. It's just another random Star Wars list. -- GWO
- Keep per if enough effort is put into the article, it will be fine Childzy 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or are we going to have Physics and Lost in Space, Physics and The Incredible Hulk, Physics and War of the Worlds, Physics and Bewitched, etc. etc. hopefully these will all be red links and it seems that the discussion of why fiction needn't follow the laws of physics is not really encyclopedic. It's called science-"fiction" for a reason. Carlossuarez46 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: True, it is fiction, but the average movie viewer probably doesn't have a whole lot of physics knowledge and may not know what's fiction and what's fact. Perhaps Chaser's suggestion of a Physics in science fiction article would be a better way to go, but that can be discussed outside of AfD. BryanG 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with added phenomena. These are both extraordinarily popular sci-fi dynasties, but if there are any more of these articles, it might be worth creating a Physics in science fiction article or the like and merging all of them. Some things (like sound in space), are common problems.--Chaser T 11:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fancruft. Artw 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per everyone above. Valid topic. --JJay 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but needs an expansion or improved standards tag 24.9.10.235 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Extra strong delete. This is an article interesting only to a niche audience. Most of the 300,000,000 inhabitants of the United States, for example, where the film was produced, would not choose to read any of this without a financial incentive. Since Misplaced Pages was designed in part for low-income children who are probably more worried about having enough money for lunch rather than enough money to buy Star Wars toys, I think this should go. It violates the spirit of the project. I can't imagine a kid in a missionary school in Kenya caring about this or even beginning to understand why it would be important to anyone. Misplaced Pages is not paper, but the flagship Wikimedia project should have an image to uphold and the thought of someone finding this on Special:Random pages is an embarassment to me. I'd also support transwiki to an appropriate Wikia project, such as Wikia or a Wikibook on film production. Erik the Rude 11:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This article should be deleted because Misplaced Pages, rather than being for anyone who wants to learn, is actually for people who are too poor to avoid Star Wars merchandise and therefore should be protected from reading any article which mentions something which has a product attached to it? I have never heard of this or anything like this as a criterion for deletion. In fact it seems to me that this editor is displaying a bias towards a certain vision for wikipedia not shared by all who contribute.
Also, if we deleted every article which was interesting to a niche audience, we'd delete half of wikipedia. Personally, I'm not a Star Wars fan (see this article for reasons why ) so I know the repeated insinuation made in this discussion that not only fanboys are interested in keeping this article. Lurker 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails twice, firstly WP:V (unverifiable, read those refs and weep; no, Virginia, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source) and secondly WP:NOR (and this is original research as the absence of references shows). Whether it's starwarscruft and thus fails WP:NOT is more a matter of opinion, but from where I'm sitting it most assuredly is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a fair criticism that one of websites don't meet the letter of WP:V, but I think it is reliable nonetheless. The Star Wars Technical Commentaries, source for two of the three phenomena I added, are written by an astrophysics postdoc who has (co-)written ten books on Star Wars that were subject to editorial review. What's more, the homepage for the Commentaries notes that they were "greatly enhanced as a result of debate and discussion involving many correspondents". In any case, this article now meets WP:V far better than many wikipedia articles that have no sources. The other source seems to be part of the Discovery Channel, as you'll discover when you click on the link in the top corner. I think that's certainly reliable.--Chaser T 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.