Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/List of sexual references in Star Wars

List of sexual references in Star Wars
I find this article quite sad. And immature. It's born of immaturity, lets be frank. We're documenting the times in which something that is not extraordinary (no, seriously) occurs IU? Just because it doesn't happen in the films? It's quite childish, and it's irritating, and, quite frankly, it's a big magnet for multiple varieties of stupid. And it serves no encyclopedic purpose. Let's just be done with it. So, Delete with teeth gnashing and lightning bolts. Thefourdotelipsis 07:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping

 * 1) I view this article as just a bit of fun, nothing immature or childish. Dirty, or perverse? That depends on your perspective. Yes, I bet a sexual maniac would drool over the page, but to other people, it should be considered as, like I said, just bit of fun, and you don't have to be obsessed with sex to mean that. I guess the people who have contributed to the article see it that way. Nightlily
 * 2) *Things that are only edited because they're "fun" belong on subpages and the like, or maybe Darthipedia or something. And, with all due respect, if people don't find editing the real articles fun, then they probably should not have an account. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) What the hell is wrong with you people? -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) (Comedic vote option) But omgz lolz I kin looks at teh pics of Leia in her bikini nad Dena Shan whens shes omgz nekkid lolz. *Inappropriate background noises censored.*  Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 23:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Take it as you will, but this is something that can actually be of help to, say, a parent wondering if the Star Wars novel his or her kid wants to read has any things in it that he or she needs to warn the kid about. I've been asked this kind of thing before, as a matter of fact.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) *Goodwood has a point. The page is useful in that way. And... a lot of work has been put into this page. I still vote for keeping it, or at least merging it. ---Nightlily---
 * 7) I don't see why this needs to be deleted, or why it is not encyclopedic. It lists when these events happen and it does not go into unnecessary detail of the events. If you don't like it, don't go to the page. Admiral Carth Onasi 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for deleting

 * 1) Sophomoric and unencyclopedic. Replace "sexual references" with "food references" or "tax collection references" and you'll see how silly the concept of lists of this sort are in general. jSarek 07:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) A place to dump the "dirty" Star Wars pictures? How incredibly thoughtful of us for the browsing pervert. Cull Tremayne 09:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Second the unencyclopedic. This article has no information on any kind of subject, it's just a list of passages and lines that mention a particular—and non-notable—process. It's a glorified appearances list. - Lord Hydronium 10:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Per the above, and anyone, a lot of this is not sexually related in any way --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) This isn't one of our better articles. It originally started out as a subpage of Azizlight, then someone thought it would be a good idea to move it to the main namespace. I say delete. -- SFH 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) You know the arguments: if we keep this, then we'd need articles for all common bodily functions; it's unencyclopedic; "funny" is not grounds for keepage; it makes us look bad; etc. Take your pick. -- Ozzel 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for merging

 * 1) If it came from Azizlight's subpage, why not just merge it back and still be able to de-article it? Too much work has been put into this page, regardless of material. --  Riffsyphon  1024 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Riff. Suppose some misguided individual put my caption page in the main namespace.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I like Riff's compromise idea the best, especially since it allows to remove it from the "officially endorsed" main space to a subpage while keeping it around if ever we should need it for the purposes of Goodwood's point. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 03:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

 * 4dot's first name is Frank! :P --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to vote here. The article's admittedly uncyclopediac, but it makes me collapse into hysterics every time I read it. Unit 8311 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see points for both sides. I'm staying neutral and not gonna vote on this one. - JMAS 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, before we get too into this... I want to make sure that "delete" and "merge" don't cancel each other out. Generally, it seems like the "merge" option is reserved for merges within the main namespace. Since this would be going to a user subpage, and we really are pretty tolerant with those unless they get ridiculously out of hand, I don't think the "merge" option is really needed here. I'm voting "delete", but I have no problem with the user subpage option, and even if I did, I really don't have any say regarding userpages (aside from our current policies). I say all this just because I don't want to see this fail because of an unnecessary split; I would urge the mergists to reconsider, since deletion does not at all mean that it can't continue as a user subpage. -- Ozzel 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)