Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/SSD continuity issues

SSD continuity issues
I think it's high-time to get rid of this. From what I've seen, it's basically one man's problem with "Why do we have different terms for different kinds of warships"? If he can't handle different classifications being in use and newer publications adding to this, then that's not this site's problem. Most of the viewpoints presented in this article is covered in bts sections or main IU articles elsewhere. It's nothing more than an attempt at restarting a debate that's been dead for years and I'm surprised to see it's still here after one whole year. VT-16 09:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) VT-16 10:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --BaldFett 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete this silly, overly-long, and most of all unnecessary article. Whatever fandom-related issues it covers can be done much more briefly in the Executor-class Star Dreadnought article. Even after it was edited by more rational people from its original form, this article is still shows a lot of supposedly "NPOV" fanboy whining, going over how "both sides" feel about a subject that is actually open-and-shut. Face it, the 8 km length is wrong (always contradicting the highest canon), and it has now been retconned away. In addition, the recent sources such as Inside the Worlds state the ship's proper designation as "Star Dreadnought," confirm that SSD is just slang, and show that actual Star Destroyers (Imperial-class) are middle-of-the-road in comparison. That's CANON, and there's nothing more to say about it. JimRaynor55 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Speedy keep - as much as I hate the SSD continuity debates, they are part of the SW culture. Like Mickey Suttle. It isn't something you can just ignore. - Sikon (Vacation) 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Maybe a bit too long, and might even need POV pruning, but I think there's a need for this article. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. The article covers an interesting issue that has been debated for years. On the other hand, I think it should be rewritten somewhat so that it is formatted more like an encyclopedia article and less like an essay.– 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Definately Keep. Jasca Ducato Sith Council (Sith campaign)[[Image:SOFD.PNG|20px]] 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep, because it's obviously not one user's biased opinion, it's well-written and has plenty of useful content. Besides, it's just natural that we have an article on such a debated issue. I remember a long thread on one of the Star Wars general discussions boards about the SSD. There were many speculations about its size, which has more credibility and whatever. We must have everything about the SSD in one article. If nothing else, we could merge it into the main SSD article. - TopAce 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep, per above. Adamwankenobi 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong keep Kuralyov 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I think as an article about a part of fan culture, it is poor. Most of the article consists of ridiculous questioning and over-interpretation on the part of the writers, and is more about questioning the road to modern canon and why different types of ships have different terms associated with them, than a short history of the debate in the fan culture by itself. VT-16 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Yes. Most of the arguments are centered around the Executor and its class. That is where it should go. VT-16 12:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, we could merge it into the main SSD article.
 * I specifically requested that it GO into it's own article a while back because the "Behind the Scenes" part of the Executor article had ballooned to being twice as long as the actual article itself. Let me repeat: "Behind the Scenes" is not the place to have back and forth arguments over these issues, they should either go on a separate page, or not be there at all. QuentinGeorge 12:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, this topic shouldn't take up that much space. The old WEG sources pulled a number out of thin air without bothering to consult the highest canon, that mistake was repeated for years in other books, and now LFL has finally fixed it. Being fair and thorough doesn't mean you have to cover each and every fanboy gripe (many of which amount to simply ignoring the latest retcons), talk about how G-canon might just be "impressionistic" and not truly canon reality, or over-analyzing (saying that every in those official sources now looks like a moron for using the 8 km number, even though the whole point of retroactive continuity is that you go BACK and change something, acting from now on that that's the way it always was). JimRaynor55 04:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What really gets me about this article, is how it states that ILM intended the Executor to be 11 times bigger than an ISD, and surprise, surprise, shows it in the films and then keeps on discussing this! That should have ended it right there. The article doesn't describe the "history" of this fan debate (What history is there? It's just guys going back and forth about the same arguments over and over), it's a long diatribe because someone was discontent with changes to WEG lore because that didn't fit the movies as well as the other information. Saying "fans have a history of arguing this issue" doesn't need to take a whole page. Just put it in few sentences in the bts section of the Executor article. VT-16 09:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)