Talk:Adventure Cruiselines
From SW1ki
[edit] Redirect?
Xerxes says Perhaps this article should be merged with / redirected to the Angry Rancor article? -- Xerxes 11:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The way I see it, Adventure Cruiselines is the actual corporation, while Angry Rancor is just one of the Cruiseline's main attractions. Two separate entities. --Danik Kreldin 13:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Xerxes says Even though they're two separate things that doesn't necessarily mean they need to be two separate articles. The question is more about how best to present the information. Is this article ever going to be more than a stub? Are we able to present everything you can know about Adventure Cruiselines within the context of a larger Angry Rancor article? -- Xerxes 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
«Hawke» If we look "big picture", Adventure Cruiselines could easily have several ships under their ensign. The Angry Rancor would still be the most-well known, the flagship, and (possibly, as it is now) the only coded ship, but to locate all the corporate information into the ship's article would be a shortfall. We have _plenty_ of space for having multiple articles; we just need the owners of Adventure Cruiselines to contribute more backstory and details to fill the article(s) up. :) -- Hawke / Rtufo 16:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Xerxes says Just because Adventure Cruiselines could have more ships doesn't mean they do, nor does it mean someone should invent content just to fill the wiki. As far as I know, Angry Rancor is their only ship coded or otherwise. And, my suggestion isn't about hypotheticals. If there's content to warrant a separate article (doesn't look like it currently) or there's going to be content to warrant a separate article, then everyone will be fine with keeping the article. If not... We don't "need the owners of Adventure Cruiselines to contribute more backstory and details to fill the article(s) up." What we need to do is properly organize and record the backstory that the owners of Adventure Cruiselines have chosen to create. -- Xerxes 19:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I originally created this page, because I wanted to add something to the Businesses category, and because this is the actual business, whereas the Rancor is the best known ship (as pointed out already). There are good points on both sides of this discussion, and I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other... it could probably work to add something about "The Company" to the Angry Rancor page, even mentioning the office on Corellia (though, that belongs to the company, not to the ship). Personally, I don't know if there is a lot more to the company, other ships, etc... this is Daana's brainchild. Just dropped her an @mail to see if she'll weigh in on this. --Inanna 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I really do not care either way. Is the Angry Rancor a separate entity from the corporation? No. Is it involved in everything that the corporation does? No again. Do I want to detail all the differences in a wiki article? Yet again, no. I do not see a problem with it being a separate article, as the existance usually spurs somebody to add content. Perhaps describing the offices on Corellia, or the (yet uncoded) offices on Ithor in the future, and it would be pretty silly to have the articles merged/redirected now, only to have them be pulled apart in a few weeks/months if/when the scope of the company significantly surpasses the Angry Rancor Operations. Then again, it is likely not my work that is being wasted, so I really do not feel strongly either way. --Daana 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay. Even if there isn't a lot of other back-story about the company, I'm leaning toawrd leaving this as a separate article. The business does seem to be separate enough to warrant it (and as Daana says, we can add more information in the future, as the company evolves. It's only been around for about a year). I just fleshed out the article a bit. Does this satisfy the concern for now, about it being too short? --Inanna 16:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
