Talk:Tantive IV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chronological[edit]

I reorganized the page into a chronological format, putting the episode III information first, then the episode IV information.
JesseG 00:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Data Block[edit]

I added a good pic of Tantive IV and a technical block about it too. I got half of my info from Star Wars: Databank and half of it from Star Wars: Vessels and Vehicles.

If anything is a bit wrong on there, which there isn't, please don't delete the whole thing cause it took me ages to do!


James Random - 15:32 (GMT)


Last Voyage[edit]

Are we sure about that? I could've swor I saw it in Return of the Jedi during the Alliance briefing. Einlanzer - 11:08am US central

I guess I'm right, as I saw on the SW databank it has it listed under Episode VI appearances.

I just deleted that section because it is irrelevant to this article. Perhaps it's relevant to the Corellian Corvette article but not this one as it is not this ship. I was always under the assumption that the ship was simply destroyed. b_cubed 16:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mister he is right the last battle is in episode 4 a new hope darth vader has id destroyed with a baroge of blaster fire information on this was found in teh book the new essential giude to vehicles and vessels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippo145 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact[edit]

I have vague recollections of hearing multiple people in documentaries, retrospectives, etc. talking about being amazed and awed by the opening of A New Hope, when the tiny corvette is chased by the huge Star Destroyer. But, I'm drawing a blank on a specific recording or writing to cite. Can any of the, I dunno, six people ;-) who've got this page on their watchlist think of anything specific? Cross-posting to the WikiProject talk page. --EEMeltonIV 02:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Having just begun listening to the radio drama of Star Wars (which, until Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm was taken as "canon"), I note that the pronunciation of the ship's name is "TAN-tiv-ee". This is presumably an adaptation, by Lucas, of the English word "tantivy", which is a ride at a fast gallop. Someone more fluent in the International Phonetic Alphabet and its use on Wikipedia may be interested in inserting a pronunciation guide. --Dystopos (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia standards used to be much less strict and people would just take your word for it, but can we get something that would help actually WP:VERIFY the claimed pronunciation? Surely Lucas or ILM mentioned the name of the ship in some behind the scenes footage? Maybe Kenner even? It seems implausible that Lucas would have written it as Tantive if he had really intended it pronounced as tantivy or tantivee. The variant Tantive is also in the dictionary. There must be more contemporary examples out there of how the name of this ship was pronounced (sources that predate this Wikipedia article). -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A video clip posted to Twitter seems to confirm the pronunciation used in the radio drama.[1][2] Whether or not you take that as gospel and believe continuity mistakes never happened under Lucasfilm and that pronunciation therefore must be "canon" is left as an exercise for the reader. -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all official spin-off audiobooks, etc., use this pronunciation, so it shouldn't be hard to verify. There's simply no other way to say it, except the way it looks (which is apparently incorrect). UpdateNerd (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"so it shouldn't be hard to verify" thanks for volunteering, I hope you can easily find some official examples and post them soon. -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? UpdateNerd (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tantive IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and merge[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantive IV (3rd nomination) and previous AfD, there are serious concerns this meets WP:FICTION/WP:GNG. In the end, Wookiepedia coverage of such fancruft topics is always superior, I think we should merge this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantive IV (3rd nomination).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose That discussion established that there was no consensus for merger let alone deletion of anything. WP:FICTION is an essay which also lacks consensus. Persisting with this is disruptive per WP:FORUMSHOP; WP:DELAFD; WP:STICK, &c. The nominator appears to be here to promote the interests of Wookiepedia – a commercial website which exists to sell advertising and make profits for its shareholders. If we were to delete or merge topics which are covered by other media and sites then we would have to close Wikipedia because everything here is supposed to be based on other sources. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge The list needs to be reformatted, of course (38 level 1 headings on mostly one-line entries is ridiculous), but that's not a matter for this talk page; apart from that, I see no reason why this content couldn't be merged. It should be noted that Andrew Davidson's above comment consists almost entirely of ad hominem attacks on Piotrus, and does not present a coherent argument in favour of keeping this as a separate article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that That discussion established that there was no consensus for merger is a misrepresentation of that discussion AFD is not the place to discuss mergers, and so the lack of consensus for a merger being established at AFD doesn't mean there wouldn't be consensus for such at the proper forum. "Merge" was an alternate proposal alluded to by some of those who opposed deletion, but others did not explicitly support or oppose it, hence "no consensus for a merge". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We've already been through this in the AFD, no sense repeating it here. There is no consensus to delete/merge this article. Not much if anything would be merged over. There is enough coverage to justify its own article. Dream Focus 13:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Please refer to the AFD. There is not a consensus. Lightburst (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantive IV, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantive IV (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantive IV (3rd nomination) for reasons cited there. New forum, new form; old story. Old wine in new bottles. Same result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per above remarks and AFD discussion. — Hunter Kahn 00:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, and content should probably be merged to multiple articles as appropriate: e.g., List of Star Wars spacecraft, Rogue One, Star Wars (film). This not even an important ship in the Star Wars universe–not like the Millennium Falcon or a TIE fighter. The no consensus AfD close doesn't mean "there's consensus it's notable", it means there's no consensus as to whether it's notable or not – i.e., notability is borderline. You can see it in the paucity of actual reliable sources treating the subject in-depth (compare with Millennium Falcon, which has sources like [3] [4] [5]). Most of the sources for Tantive IV appear to be advertisements for models, games and toys. Having an article about this minor fictional vehicle with this much in-depth treatment strikes me as "fancruft" with a touch of promo. It reminds me of the classic Pokemon debates. We shouldn't have a separate article for every Star Wars vehicle just like we shouldn't have an article for every Pokemon, even if there are enough sources out there to do it. I guess WP:NOTTRIVIA would be the policy to cite? – Levivich 21:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- if the Colonel wants to accuse people of secretly shilling for a commercial website he needs to provide proof of that accusation or retract it. Reyk YO! 07:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Despite the vehement claims of some of the other participants, a no consensus result at AfD is not the same as consensus to keep, it is not an endorsement of the content as it stands, and it definitely doesn't block further changes to it. The case made for merging the content with other Star Wars articles is better than the case for a badly sourced, crufty stand-alone article. Reyk YO! 07:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tantive_IV&oldid=1206796135"