Talk:Aurora (MWDA)


I propose that this page be merged with the main Aurora article as a section of its own rather than a stand alone article.--Dmon (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

Disagree. This article here is about the miniature/figurine, a real-world MWDA product in its own right. The Aurora article is about the class. These are very different subjects, imho. The fact that the two articles are built around different infoboxes already goes to show these should be separate articles. Frabby (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
As far as I am aware the Model came first and the article is the cannonization of it, so the two are linked enough to make it work.. And as it is the article is a stub with not really going to possibly get more info in the future.--Dmon (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
Not quite sure what you're saying, sorry. To rehash my argument why this can (should) be two articles, one article is about a physical product (the miniature) while the other is about an in-universe concept (the ship class). Merging these could be confusing.
Then again, I've been guilty of at least one such combo article myself: Cargo Queen. To shore up my argument, the Cargo Queen scenario and the eponymous vessel are apocryphal and barely notable, so a single article seemed in order. A DropShip class and a physical product, on the other hand, are both relatively high-profile articles which is why I feel they should remain separate articles.
Ultimately I don't feel strongly on the matter so if you go and merge the articles, I won't revert it. Frabby (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
The reason I created a different article it was because this Aurora (MWDA) page to tackle the MechWarrior Dark Age product itself and not the dropship class. I read that this dropship was not sold much, mostly on conventions so it is not a usual product, but I though it deserved its own page and not the two lines in the main article.--Pserratv (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2019 (EDT)