Talk:List of fictional vehicles

Multi-form/Variable-form vehicles?

The one I can think of currently is the Magic School Bus (don't blame me, I'm a parent). It's notable enough, but I'm sure it doesn't fit into any of the current categories. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it's a flying bus. We could put it under the amphibious vehicles section (not quite fitting I guess) or we open a new section called "Other" and put it there. --Scriberius (talk)

What is the poit of this page

Like the list of ficitional spaceships this page is pointless unless there is some good reason for having a confuisng mess that is no help to anyone can someone delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.84.252 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass destruction of information by editor who previously tried to delete the article

I see several notable examples wiped out in a mass deletion spree done by an editor, who back in May of last year nominated the article for deletion, that ending in Keep. That means consensus was to keep the entire article, not have 90% of it wiped out. I am restoring the mass deletion. If you believe something doesn't belong there, discuss it here, and someone familiar with that series will comment on it. Dream Focus 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In the mass destruction done, I noticed that even The General Lee, which actually has its own article, was deleted, as well as others. Don't just wipe out something because you've never heard of it. It was a vehicle in a notable series, and someone who has seen that series can tell you how important it was, or if you look up reviews for it, you can surely find them. Dream Focus 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem we're encountering here is one of the scope of this page. It seems that some believe that the page should only cover purely fictional vehicles, that is ones that are of a completely fictional design, such as the Batmobile(s), while others would include ones that are simply custom versions of real vehicles, such as The General Lee (which is little more than a 1969 Dodge Charger with a unique paint job), that are featured in fictional works. In reality, they're very different things, which is a major part of the reason that I believe this list is far too broad in scope to truly be useful. oknazevad (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They play a significant role in fictional works. I'll change the definition to clarify that at the start of the article. Thanks for your input. I hadn't thought of that. Dream Focus 04:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets get the facts right, my nomination did not end in a keep, it ended in a no concensus, I only voted this time because I was ntoified about this nomination. As with your reinstatement of entries and your tabloid sensationalistic "mass destruction" heading, what are you trying to include, fictional vehicle in fictional works or vehicle in fictional works, are we going to include the Devil Z from Wangan Midnight when in fact like the General Lee, it is a modified car (modified Datsun Fairlady Z), are we going to include every cars that appeared in films such as the Bullitt Mustang, The Fast and the Furious Supra, the Akina Hachiroku from Initial D or the Pursuit Special from Mad Max. Plus with your revision, tell me what is so significant about these vehicles in Command and Conquer and Halo, do any reliable third party source mention them, do any reliable third party sources list these entries, I'll tell you what, don't bother editing unless you can find a reliable third party sources for these entries. @Focus, I removed the General Lee, why, because that vehicle is not fictional at all, it is more like a car from fiction, I am doing my job at keeping this article from being another bloated dumping ground for some random fictional vehicles. Donnie Park (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing your job? Those who hate an article do their job by destroying most of it? [1] That doesn't really make any sense. I see no reason not to list any fictional vehicle from a major work of fiction. And the General Lee wasn't just a car with a paint job, and the doors welded shut so the characters had to enter and exit through the windows. It was a popular selling toy in those days, I owning one. We can all discuss what makes something notable enough to be on the list and form consensus. But I don't think someone who is trying to delete the article entirely, should be going around mass deleting most of it. Dream Focus 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't destroying it, I deleted those that do not have its own article as well as the few that I doubted it qualified for entry. Donnie Park (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion on the list

• Vehicle is from a notable series, AND at least one of the following:
• Vehicle has its own Wikipedia article
• Vehicle has ample coverage in media, they not able to review a series without mentioning it constantly, it a key aspect of it.
• Vehicle is a prominent part of the series, and has unique features that set it apart from vehicles in the real world.
• Has been released as a toy, sold on its own, not just bundled with main characters.

Comments? Anyone agree or disagree with any of that? Anything else to add to it? Dream Focus 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Herbie, Kitt and General Lee all have their own articles. Herbie and Kitt could actually understand people and think, and had series built around them. Dream Focus 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Vehicle has its own Wikipedia article" this is not required at all. Ikip 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of a different conversation. He can't say he removed all those without articles, since some of those he removed did in fact have articles. Dream Focus 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• Herbie and Kitt couldn't really understand people and think, they were just props in the crap they appeared in.
• You've used the word 'series' four times above and most fiction is not produced in serial form.
• This fake article is great fun to add to.
• I opined <del;>

Happy editing, Jack Merridew 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, calling something "crap" or "fake" is not helpful, though it does express your personal opinion. Please note that in films, everything is a "prop". Some are created for the film and some are already in existance. And marketing of prop memorabilia whether as toys or books or placemats is big business. All that Pokeman stuff springs to mind. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I meant the characters. And I doubt anyone was confused by my statement. And I use the word series, since I don't know any other word for "work of fiction" and its quicker to write than "work of fiction". How can it be a fake article? Do you mean invalid? We'll see what consensus says on the AFD about that. Dream Focus 07:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Illegitimate is more what I was thinking. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 08:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As I was working on a guideline myself before this one sprang up, I'll accept this guideline, though I've fixed one of the guidelines now stating ALL MUST have its own articles, redirects are banned; otherwise it will become a dumping ground for any random junk, also have you forgot the all-important reliable third party sources. Donnie Park (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't edit someone else's post like that. Just write what you think it should be as a reply, and we'll see what everyone else thinks. Dream Focus 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to do that, well this is what I am proposing on the top heading...

Vehicle is from a notable series with its own Wikipedia article (no redirect, not even to list of vehicles - these must be listed separately), AND at least one of the following:

• ....Donnie Park (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the toy, trouble is that because mecha anime have became a subgenre of its own, nearly every mecha from an anime have been released as a toy, scale model or a garage model as well as those of sci-fi shows/films/books/comics, hence I say why having an article of its own is an important criteria than the toy part. Donnie Park (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All the toys from a certain series could be combined. All the Star Wars vehicles are put in their own article already[2]. And the vehicles for the various Gundam series fills up several different list articles. [3] Any notable series will have its own list article, such as List of Eureka Seven mecha. Dream Focus 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The same sorts of problems exist at Talk:List of fictional computers and I suspect the solutions for both these articles will be similar. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Donnie Park, you wrote: "I'll accept this guideline, though I've fixed one of the guidelines now stating ALL MUST have its own articles, redirects are banned" yet I dont see this in your edits of project space.[4] I am confused. Ikip 05:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quite sensible. However, while having an existing article is certainly a good thing, not having one (yet) is no proof of non-notability... only acts as an example that an article is needed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourced items should remain in the article. thanks. Ikip 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Or be added back in? [5] Dream Focus 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wells and Verne

What about airships, Nemo's submarine, Robur the Conqueror, rocket belts (my word, YES...Buck Rogers and company!), starships, flying carpets, broomsticks, chariots drawn by the horses of the sun, a basket carried by swans, King Arthur's barge.... --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Its a fictional vehicle, and is a significant part of a notable work of fiction, then it should be added. Harry Potter and other notable works have broomsticks in them, as flying vehicles. Flying Carpets have their article already. Dream Focus 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you considering adding, consider WP:WTAF first otherwise edits will be reverted without warning. Donnie Park (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Relax, relax...I'm sure we can find enough fictional vehicles right here within our cozy little wikiverse. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see...we've redefined this list as a "List of Wikipedia articles about fictional vehicles". That narrows it down considerably, though of course makes it useless as a list; we should rename the article to make it clear. What's the point of this again? --00:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtshymanski (talk • contribs)

I changed it back. You are just being WP:POINTY. Dream Focus 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Donnie Park, there was no consensus for you to mass delete most of the article during the AFD. And now you are threatening to erase anything someone adds without warning. We need to agree upon inclusion criteria, and then decide what to add back in, and what to keep out. Form consensus by discussion on the talk page, before any major changes, such as deleting 2/3rds of the article or trying to change its name. Dream Focus 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why are you still bleating about 2/3rd of the article gone, that nomination is over, just get over it, all I am doing is to make it AfD proof. I am making sure editors understand that we only allow articles of vehicles in fiction, not titles and any crap there is...I mean come on, I mean don't you have a standard? Donnie Park (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Teleportation

Are stepping disks, transfer booths, teleporters "vehicles" for the purpose of this list? If not, why are time machines included ( they don't travel in space at all, except incidentally to not leaving the protagonist somerewhere in intersteallar space as the Earth moves)? What about astral projection? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it a magical item or something? Is it a vehicle you are riding? If there were notable flying disk that people road on, technologically based or moved by animal power, then it'd count. Not if its just a magical creation, or produced by psychic energies, or whatnot. A time machine is something you step into, and then it takes you someplace. Since the planet was not in the same position it is now, it moves you a distance to get to the same spot. Or moving across time is the same is moving across space, isn't it? The teleportation items from The Fly I suppose would be a notable vehicle. Dream Focus 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out the Larry Niven Known Space stories for examples of transfer booths and stepping disks (stepping disks don't fly, though Niven did put a stepping disk into a probe in "Ringworld Engineers"). "Star Trek" has a transporter. I thought magical vehicles were allowed (broomsticks, flying carpets, enchanted castles).

Niven never got around to writing it up as a story, but he did describe using a Ringworld as a vehicle. Does it actually have to get to the story stage or can we just cite Niven's writing about the concept? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I was thinking of Marvel comics having Magik able to make teleportation disk to teleport around space and time. Or in the Dark Elf novels they could open teleportation portals to step through to get to places. That wouldn't be a vehicle. Is it a spell cast by someone, or is it an actual thing? Does it vanish when they aren't using it? Dream Focus 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No animals?

We're excluding Gepetto's whale, Gandalf's horse, Gulliver's Yahoos and other living creatures, right? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Gandalf's horse wasn't but a regular horse. Pegasus on the other hand, was the vehicle of a child of one of the ancient gods, so could be considered. The Wikipedia has an article called Vehicle which defines things rather well. An animal drawn vehicle is still a vehicle, but "animals on their own, though used as a means of transport, are not called vehicles, but rather beasts of burden or draft animals." Dream Focus 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shadowfax doesn't sound like a standard-issue horse to me.

What about genetically-engineered cyborged insects grown to giant size and governed by a computer, turning them into vehicles? There were a couple of stories in Analog on this theme a few years back, though I've packed mine away now. You could climb inside these things. John Varley's Titan had "creatures" used for tranport, where the only technology is biotechnology.

Cinderella's pumpkin coach is a similar problem...it's an enchanted squash, basically.

We should probably exclude the tuft trees of the Smoke Ring because they weren't dirigible, and though riding one after it broke was survivable, it usually wasn't intentional.

What about Seven-league boots and ruby slippers?

Phaëton's chariot definitely should be included. And a cuss at those militant folks who put diareses in the English Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Defintion of *real* vehicles is too limiting to be useful in this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition of what a vehicle is, is what you should follow. If it was method of transportation, then you could include bare back animals, and magic spells. Dream Focus 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Nimitz and the like

Are we excluding real vehicles that were used in fiction? For example the Nimitz was the star of The Final Countdown (film). And the Titanic made a few movies, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a single way count as a fictional vehicle. Donnie Park (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's no way that should be included. ----DanTD (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a fictional vehicle, if its 100% real. Dream Focus 02:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But the Nimitz in the movie wasn't 100% real, even if was just the name of the captain changed. I haven't hit IMDB yet but I'm sure there's a list of goofs for the movie that show discrepancies between the fictional portrayal of the Nimitiz and the real ship. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unintentional goofs are different than intentional designs. You can't say, hey, that ship launched 17 missiles and I know it only has 16 that can fit into a launcher at a time, so it must be a new type of ship! No, actually, its just an accident. If they had lasers and force fields or it somehow managed to fly around, then it'd be something different. Or if it was famous for being someone's command center, and their famous command center just happened to be a modified aircraft carrier, that might be a different story. Dream Focus 18:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What about space stations?

Well? Orbiting satellites, space stations, etc. ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are they used primarily as transport vehicles? I don't think that is its primary function. The entire world is spinning, thus we're riding on it, that doesn't make it a vehicle. And if you were in the cowboy days, and they were dragging you behind a horse to punish you, your duster(coat) wouldn't be considered a vehicle even if was something you ended up riding on, pulled by an animal. Nor does it count if a giant bird flies by and grabs you by the hair, and carries you off. Dream Focus 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

Christine is out but Nomad is in. Why? Would the article owner care to elaborate? And poor old Jay Jay the Jet Plane is never going to get an article separate from the discussion of the TV series, unlike the drooling fanboys of various other animation series. ( This really should be split into "List of fictional automobiles", "List of fictional airships", etc.)--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional dogs is a lot more inclusive. Most lists are. There's no point going about this enterprise with less than full enthusiasm. We've already decided this isn't a List of Wikipedia articles about fictional vehicles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree Christine is certainly a notable fictional vehicle. It is what the Stephen King horror novel is about. The book was popular enough to be made into a movie. And the vehicle is fictional, since that real life model of car doesn't come with evil possessed spirits that try to kill people. I'm going to add that back in with a few other things. Dream Focus 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Christine is out, why, because it does not have its own article, thats why, unless you want another AfD nomination of course. Donnie Park (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We've already decided this is not List of Wikipedia articles about fictional vehicles. There's a perfectly fine article about Christine. It would be meaningless to dissect out Christine-the-57-Chevy from the story. There's no way to research Christine-the-vehicle separate from the story because *it* *has* *no* *existence* apart *FROM* the story. It's vehicles in FICTION, after all. Unless you can get a microscope inside Stephen King's head, there is no more source material to be had than the story itself. This is aproblem with all lists of fictional objects - they cannot be researched because the source material is only the primary source, the story.

If you separate out the fictional vehicle from it's story, you lose all context - it's not like you can write General Motors and get their current catalog of Bolos, for example. What's left in a freestanding article is then pretty lame and is just a parroting of whatever description the story author saw fit to include - which in respectable literature rarely includes a data sheet. How many cylinders did Christine have? What final-axle ratio? Which stations preset on the radio? We don't know, and we don't *care* - a vehicle in fiction is serving a different role than a real-world vehicle. (There was a story in Analog last year where alien literature required a complete recitation of details like this.)

This article has survived 3 AfD nominations already, at this point it would take an air strike and possibly a neutron bomb to kill it. I don't think it's realistic to claim it's at risk of actually being deleted; Wikipedia is full of lists like List of fictional New Zealanders or [List of fictional monkeys]] ( which latter article primly specifically excludes apes) and the notorious thousands of articles on individual asteroids. If this list is going to be any use, it's got to be thorough - not just a smattering of articles where some fanboy has written about Green Transformer and Red Transformer and Blue Transformer, but pointers to substantial articles about stories that have fictional vehicles.

The main reason I think fictional objects should not be discussed separately from their fictioanl universes is that it makes for a stronger encyclopedia, with fewer stubs, and the opportunity to better explain the role of the fictional objects in context. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a concise overview knowledge, not a parts catalog. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WTAF is just an essay. Read the disclaimer up top. And threatening to have yet another AFD if you don't get your way, is just pathetic. Everyone else that has commented on this page has said you do NOT need an article for something on the list. Consensus is clear. Stop being disruptive, and accept consensus. Dream Focus 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• When did I threaten to have another AFD if I don't get my way, you tell me, I only said in the event of somebody nominated this again, not myself, especially when I have no intention of nominating this again. I only put this on nomination once when I getting the sense that I washed my hands with that list and only voted on the following one when I was notified by some bot. I can accept concensus for only that I don't have contribute to this pathetic list again, lets put it this way, I think it would be much better if every article on Wikipedia got deleted, so nobody will have anything to argue and we got things to make out lives useful. Donnie Park (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Power suit

Not the ones with pinstripes...powered exoskeletons, like Starship Troopers or Forever War or about 11 billion things called "gundam" that I have no great interest in reading. Not a flying car, not an automobile, usually have some flight/cross country capability that would seem to make them vehicles. I think they need their own heading. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mecha? Exosquad comes to mind. Plus Voltron, and many other things. Dream Focus 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about the symbiotes from The Ophiuchi Hotline? It does let you get around the rings of Saturn comfortably, but might be considered more of a life-style choice than a vehicle. Opinions? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there an actual vehicle, or do they just send information about their final brain scans somewhere, and then get recreated? That isn't really them, just a recreation. So they aren't being transported. Dream Focus 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What? No, nothing like that. You walk up to a pile of green goo, it swarms up your hand and envelopes you, tapping into your brain, circulatory and excretory systems. After a few hours or day of sensory deprivation a personality develops and you can talk to it. After some practice, the human/symb can step out into the vacuum and start living in space. Read the book - real SF has stuff that you never seen in the Japanimation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I read through the Wikipedia article. Is it a vehicle, or just a protective covering? Sounds like a new body more than a vehicle, like the Symbiote (comics). Of course, some might consider the human body a vehicle for the brain/soul. What happens if you put your brain in a robot body to walk around with? That counts as a new body, not a vehicle, doesn't it? Then again, if you are in a mecha, its a vehicle, and if you die and your brain gets fused with that same mecha, does it become a body instead of a vehicle? When the people writing the dictionaries decided what every word meant, they didn't think too far into the future, so are going to be outdated. Dream Focus 18:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

James Bond's car quite notable

• A Lotus Esprit S 1 in the 1977 film The Spy Who Loved Me (James Bond 007) is quite well known, I finding plenty of news about it in the movie, and even outside when they put it on display somewhere. [[6]] It never had any actual name, just a regular car made into something quite fictional, adding in the ability to act as a submarine, torpedoes included. Dream Focus 21:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. [7] Already on a list linked to. Nevermind. Dream Focus 21:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Buckaroo Banzai's Jet car

Notable element of a notable film, something talked about, and they even made a toy from it. Most famous inventions of the character, what he is best known for. [[8]] Dream Focus 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes a featured list

See Wikipedia:Featured list criteria . There are only 6: Prose, lead, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability. Featured lists I've looked at have references, even if the entry is also a blue link - seems redundant to me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Does This Article Exist, Come Again?

I read through this comment page and while it's always refreshing to see Wiki editors not fighting (much) and calling each other names, my biggest problem with this article is it has zero citations or references. If we follow Wiki's rules that: any information without a citation may be removed, then by definition this article won't exist. Some suggestions would be: anyone this invested with coming up with long lists of information would be equally invested in citing where they got this information (and if they're not I suppose that reflects the trivia nature of lists), or we could turn this into a category page (again, there is no actual information on this page outside of links). Or better yet, that actual information I just mentioned, a paragraph after each category justifying its existence to those who don't know much about fantasy worlds and the machines within them might be nice. Duende-Poetry (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not say "any information without a citation may be removed" anywhere that I'm aware of. Only if its slanderous about a real person, or someone sincerely doubts the information. Dream Focus 15:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for replying. I guess where I am concerned, especially after reading how this page is currently presented, if this falls under these guidelines for Wiki or not:

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files 2. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation.

I understand one person's idea about organization and navigation can be confusing to another person, but not personally being a fanboy the information presented here, as it stands, doesn't explain to me why it's here. That's why I posted the This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject, because it all seems very arbitrary. For example, under Flying Cars you have the Spinner from Blade Runner, but not the flying taxi from Fifth Element. You have the Hoverboard from Back to the Future, but not the Hovercrafts from the original Jonny Quest series. There are mention of some random tanks, but not Tank Girl's. You have a category for Flying or moving castles (which, I suppose, could be argued could be considered a Magical vehicle too) but not Baba-Yaga's chicken-legged hut. And that's my whole point, it's random and amateurish, no one has done any work to explain why any of this is important besides someone declaring "I'm going to make a list." I can replace one arbitrary entry with another it doesn't actually effect anything. Plus, there's no citation and the categories are, in places, very vague. I mean, if Herbie is considered a Magical vehicle, why isn't Thomas the Train? Or any of the vehicles in Bob the Builder (or the billion and half other cartoons featuring talking vehicles) So my question to you is, if this is an article of value to you, how can we make this better? Duende-Poetry (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If something is missing then add it. Does the back story for Herbie say it is magical, and not just mechanical, or supernatural(possessed by someone's spirit)? Thomas and whatnot are in their own section, which links to the pages that list all of their trains, and then link to their individual articles such as Thomas the Tank Engine. Most of those things on any of these list(some broken off to side articles linked to in this article) have articles dedicated to them. Dream Focus 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, maybe I'm not making myself clear. I can see how this is organized, but so far what I don't hear, and as an editor would like to know, is why is this list necessary? Why is the information presented in this list necessary? Wiki tries hard to avoid trivia, which is why in encyclopedia articles there is some text explaining to the reader why they should care (i.e., "this is so not trivial!") So I'm not calling for original research, but what I am asking for is to explain to me how we can make this better, so if someone asked me "justify this page, why should we keep it?" right now, as the page is, I don't think I could come up with an argument for keeping it Duende-Poetry (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki does not try hard to do anything, since its not a living entity. A small number of people try to eliminate things they don't like, but the overwhelming majority of people are tolerate of such things. It meets all requirements for a list article. That's why it survived three attempts to delete it at AFD already. It aids in navigation, for anyone curious about finding out information about famous fictional vehicles. Dream Focus 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been thinking about my approach in wanting to make this article better and I think I might have perhaps gotten off on the wrong foot. It's a good thing we have editors here who feel passionately about the work they do and I think Wiki would be far less impressive without them and what they bring to these articles. I think I was too hasty in my assessment of the value of information provided here. Sometimes when I get caught up trying to improve things I tend to be a little ... narrow in my visions. If there is anything I can do to be of assistance here, please let me know. In the meantime, thanks for the hard work. Duende-Poetry (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)