Talk:IG-100 MagnaGuards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

The following articles are to be merged into one


Definitely a good idea. I think the final page should be entitled MagnaGuard, because it is the common-official name (IG-100 MagnaGuard is the official name, but more people know it as a MagnaGuard, while "Grevious's Bodyguard" is unofficial. The name should be singular due to the Wikipedia: Naming conventions. -Xol 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

IG-100 is now a redirect. MagnaGuard is fine, though "Grevious's Bodyguard" is how the action figure is labled, and "Bodyguard Droid" is how it is listed on the Star Wars Databank. Other thoughts? -Dr Haggis - Talk 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that "Magna Guard" is the best name. But whatever the final name, the other names should still be mentioned on the final page, which is not currently the case. -Xol 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think IG-100 MagnaGuards is the most accurate

[edit] Cortosis

Where does the information that IG-100's armour is made from Cortosis come from? The wikipedia entry about cortosis contradicts what this article says about the strength of IG-100's armour. --Funkmaster 801 18:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I took it out. I'm pretty sure it was false. -LtNOWIS 03:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)