Talk:M-4

Split
Seeing this article covers two distinct machines, shouldn't they get separate pages? This page could then be the disambiguation. – Cleanse 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE: I am against that at this stage given that the two sections are so short and splitting them would result in stub articles. If they were each longer then I'd agree but it works well the way it is now. -FleetCaptain 12:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT: I think that it needs split, they are two distinct devices.--UESPA 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't be stubs as each contains a few sentences and is enough to decently cover its topic (even if a bit of expansion is possible).

I don't see why we should group two machines that are entirely different together just because they coincidentally have the same name (even though I agree it probably means Mark-4).

Alternatively, this page could cover Flint's M-4, with Daystrom's at M-4 multitronic unit. No disambiguation would then be needed, just a note at the top of each page.– Cleanse 04:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you make the split, I doubt anyone will stop you. I do think more votes on the proposal should be made first.  Right now its just you and me talking.  Other inputs are needed, I feel. -FleetCaptain 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, votes are irrelevant, creating a disambiguation is in order when "resolving the conflict that occurs when articles about two or more different topics have the same natural title." What comes next is the question of necessity. The multitronic units M1, M2, M3, and M4 were very likely the same as M5, only with minute differences in programming and or the inclusion of engrams, either way, they were all failures. Running all over MA to learn that M1-M4 were all failures, only to finally discover that M-5 multitronic unit was the only success could be viewed as frivolous. If in keeping the article on M-4, solely to describe Flint's "butler", you could include a disambiguation point at the top of the page redirecting readers to perhaps multitronics, where the M1-M4 references would seem to naturally be mentioned in passing in describing the technologies early history. Otherwise, as Cleanse stated above, if MA refers to the M-5, in title, as the M-5 multitronic unit, one would assume to follow suit with the naming of the rest, and call the problem child here, the M-4 multitronic unit. --Alan del Beccio 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The way you are suggesting is how the article was first written. The M-4 for Flint's little buddy and and a disambig note for the M-4. After flushing it out, M-4 of Daystrom's is pretty much its own article now. We could split it to M-4 (Daystrom) or something like that and have a vote to delete if it was a bad article. M-1 is actually a pretty significant article within its own right. M-4 could be as well. I say go with the split into two articlesd and see what happens. -FleetCaptain 22:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a need for M-4 multitronic unit as a separate page. M-4 is the only one of M-2 to 4 getting an extra half page for no apparent reason. I think the overall cleanest solution is to make M-4 about Flint's machine (with a hint that it also means "Mark 4" in general), with a disamb link to multitronics at the top.. Multitronics would then cover M-1 to 4, with only M-5 deserving its own page. (so, IMO, that also means removing/merging M-1). --  Harry  talk 23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget that M-1 to M-4 are mentioned in canon and therefore can legally have thier own article M-2 and M-3 are not directly mentioned thus do not get an article. McCoy says "M-1 through M-4: Not entirely successful, right?" Therefore we have a canon statement for their existence and thus the need for an article. -FleetCaptain 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * McCoy was speaking in jest. He had no knowledge of whether M-1, M-2 or M-3 ever existed. And let's not forget that Flint's M-4 had no relation to Daystrom's M-1 through M-5. -Anon 31 Dec 2010