Talk:Skirmish at Tranquil Repose

Where was this called a 'battle', at the very most it's two Dalek factions engaging one another, in a very short fight. --Tangerineduel 14:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhapse Skirmish at Tranquil Repose is a better term or maybe Stand Off at Tranquil Repose Dark Lord Xander 14:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand the purpose of pages like this. You're obviously inventing a term.  This encounter has no name.  That's the truth of the fiction.  Link to Revelation of the Daleks in a naturalistic way and be done with it.  Such as:  A skirmish occurred between two Dalek factions at Tranquil Repose.  Meanwhile, there's much actual work that needs to be done at the Revelation page . . .   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  20:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So were agreed on Skirmish?--Skittles the hog 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I vote for the article's wholesale deletion. There is no rationale whatsoever for creating pages like this to describe events that are already covered by the plot at the episode page.  I mean, where does this madness end?  The Time the Dalek Came Out of the Thames?  When Cybermen Walked In Front of St. Paul's Cathedral?  That Time the Doctor Almost Blew Up Davros?  Styre's Mountainside Chat With Sarah Jane Smith?  I mean, c'mon, this is one step too far.  I'll grant that there are some instances when you need a page for something that's not specifically named in a script.  This whole Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor is a good example.  You need a page for that, but we don't have a name for it.  Fine.  But fake names for portions of the plot of an episode?  Create a redirect if you really must, but don't waste time actually writing a rehash of the plot that already exists elsewhere.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I note with great displeasure that this article was moved before this discussion was in any way resolved. None of my questions have been answered, and there was nothing close to a consensus on the name Skirmish.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The ludicrous thing is the only thing that links to this page (aside from the redirects) comes from the Revelation of the Daleks article page. I've chucked a prop delete, just in case anyone wants to make a case for it. --Tangerineduel 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * i still think having articles like this are valid but if we are going to have them we need to work them into the other articles and make sure they are linked to the correct pages Dark Lord Xander 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They're valid as long as they can be justified with suitable content and links to the article. If you believe it shouldn't be deleted, feel free to replace it with a tag on it. --Tangerineduel 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, you can't just replace it with a cleanup tag at this point.  A proposal has been made and two editors have voted  for deletion.   It's an active vote.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point i only see you who is in favor for deletion but i may be wrong so here is a vote Dark Lord Xander 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no. I didn't add the proposed deletion tag, Tangerineduel did.  So one must assume he cast the first delete vote.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this page should be deleted, as User:CzechOut points out, keeping this article would set a precedent and open a can of worms with a mass of other articles that could all be justified by comparison to this one. It's not about the quality of the article for me, the fact it needs a cleanup is irrelevant, its the validity of the content of the article itself. I vote for deletion. GingerM 21:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection of the article i see no reason for it as long as any information provided on the page is provided elsewhere Dark Lord Xander 00:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) GingerM
 * 2)  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Dark Lord Xander