Talk:Sulaco (fictional spacecraft)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alien, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.AlienWikipedia:WikiProject AlienTemplate:WikiProject AlienAlien articles

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Redirect, 2 December 2022, see discussion.
Keep, 12 May 2008 (UTC), see discussion.

Classification

I've made some changes. Primarily, to the classification of the Conestoga-class starship. I find no evidence of it being a commercial design ever, and, to the contrary, the Colonial Marines Technical Manual states that "[t]he Conestoga class vessels were originally designed as troop and logistic transports with a limited defensive capability [...]" (Brimmicombe-Wood, 116). Also, the speed is given in sidereal days in the book, so I made that change, as well as a link to the wiki article on it.--IdoAlphaOmega 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Displaces"

I think "displaces" is a pretty silly way to talk about mass in the context of a space ship, since it's never going to "displace" any water, and there's no way it "displaces" that much space gas and dust. Really should be "has a mass of" instead. You could even say something like "intertial mass" if you wanted to sound technical, but "displaces" is silly. (Lordjim13 23:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Tag - reason for removal

The merge tag was on this article for several months, without anyone bothering to explain reasons for it, and with anybody supporting the merge on the talk page either. Then there was a deletion request, which I contested by saving this article with a substantial amount of third-party references and added material. The nominator of the deletion request (who was himself aiming for a 'delete/merge') agreed that this be kept and struck from the mixed request for merge/deletion of a whole bunch of articles.

While the closing admin of the deletion discussion could not recommend any one course for these articles, I hold that the process of the discussion (during which this article was removed as a candidate for the merge/delete) shows that reinstating the merge proposal for this specific article isn't reasonable. I am therefore removing it. Ingolfson (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]