Forum:CT:Amendment to Canon notability policy

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Amendment to Canon notability policy
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support the proposal. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:17, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

As has been discussed here, our current canon notability policy no longer adequately serves our purposes as a wiki. This specific clause was originally created after the canon reset to prevent the creation of pages for film characters that would just wind up being TC'd. While this clause was prudent back then, canon has matured to a point where this rule actively holds us back from creating reasonable pages.

Take Tamizander Rey, for example, a character with notable dialogue that appears in The Empire Strikes Back. Or Sors Bandeam, who appears in a pivotal scene in Revenge of the Sith. Neither has a canon article because of this policy.

Therefore, I hereby call a vote to remove the following clause in its entirety from the notability policy:

Subjects from the six original films and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars film and television series that received official names in the Legends continuity shall not be given Canon articles until they receive official names in Canon source material. Once an official Canon name is established for these subjects, an article may be created for them.
Exceptions to this rule include battles and other events, as the vast majority of these have conjectural names; as well as notable personal weapons, such as the lightsaber used by both Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker.

Support

  1. RattsT (talk) 20:02, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  2. SilverSunbird (talk) 20:05, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  3. There is no reason why the notability of Canon subjects should hinge on the notability of their Legends counterparts. If something is notable within the Canon universe, then it should have an article. Similarly, this still means that Legends notability != Canon notability. Unnotable Canon subjects will still be taken to the TC. 1358 (Talk) 21:12, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  4. Nice work. Braha'tok enthusiast (Hello there) 21:15, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  5. AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:16, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  6. --Lewisr (talk) 21:26, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  7. --Editoronthewiki (talk) 21:31, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  8. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus Open frequency 21:33, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:03, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  10. Wok142 (talk) 22:11, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  11. 01miki10 Open comlink 22:20, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  12. Plume Tray (talk) 22:28, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  13. VergenceScatter (talk) 22:30, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  14. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 22:54, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  15. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:25, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
  16. Supreme Emperor (talk) 00:51, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  17. Toqgers (talk) 01:40, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  18. CIS roundel OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 02:33, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  19. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 07:07, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  20. Oh, finally. Support. jSarek (talk) 08:08, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  21. This clause was essential when canon was introduced, to avoid the influx of hundreds of "unidentified" articles. However, with six years of reference material, the vast majority of subjects this would apply to now have official names anyway. As such, it's become a hinderance not to be able to create articles for the extremely few film and TV subjects that only lack a name in canon. The intention for this clause was to gradually ease it as more subjects received names, and the scope of the rule was already significantly reduced at last May's Mofference, with no unforeseen side effects. Therefore, I think now is the time to complete remove this. Canon has grown beyond the need for it. Tommy-Macaroni 11:26, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  22. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 11:38, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  23. Agreed. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 11:41, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  24. Per Tommy. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:08, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  25. NanoLuukeCloning facility 22:40, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
  26. Fan26 (Talk) 12:59, July 8, 2020 (UTC)
  27. Zed42 (talk) 20:55, July 8, 2020 (UTC)
  28. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 23:33, July 9, 2020 (UTC)
  29. JRT2010 (talk) 08:19, July 11, 2020 (UTC)
    VergenceScatter (talk) 05:21, July 15, 2020 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Duplicate vote -- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:58, July 17, 2020 (UTC))
  30. MasterCommerce GuildFredcerique 05:38, July 15, 2020 (UTC)
  31. Mr Star Wars Amino Republic (talk) 20:40 July 19, 2020 (UTC)
  32. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:10, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

So, is this to clear the way so that we can create Canon articles for these characters without a Canon source stating the name? - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 21:00, July 6, 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, canon articles would be created for these characters under conjectural names. RattsT (talk) 21:08, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying. Just wanted to make sure we weren't talking about creating Sors Bandeam/Canon and assuming the same name in canon. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:25, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
      • I think using Legends names in conjunction with a new Template:Conjecture variation or a similar template, something that clearly indicates to the reader that a given name comes from Legends and is not official in the new canon, would probably be the best way to go on these articles. People looking for these characters are likely to be using their Legends names to find out more information about their canon versions - someone is a lot more likely to search for "Sors Bandeam" than "Unidentified Purged Youngling," or "Tamizander Rey" than "Unidentified Echo Base Deck Officer," even if that person is focused on canon information regarding those characters. jSarek (talk) 08:08, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
        • Hmm. On the one hand I can see how this would be useful, but on the other I'm not sure I can really support it right now. Lucasfilm has no obligation to keep the names the same, for whatever reason they could decide to change them. Also, by the logic provided in borrowing Legends names, I don't see what would stop, for example, Unidentified head-bumping stormtrooper being moved to Wanten/Legends, which I would definitely be opposed to. Regardless, this would be an important change to what has been laid out above, so I'm not comfortable implementing it with this CT. Perhaps this could be discussed later down the line. RattsT (talk) 08:39, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
          • People searching for canon information on a subject named only in Legends would simply click on the canon tab. It's a straightforward feature, so I don't see any problems that might require follow-up policy changes or a new template. - - -CIS roundel OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 10:45, July 7, 2020 (UTC)
            • OOM is 100% correct, the point of the tabs system is so people searching for a subject in one continuity can easily find the subject's counterpart in the other continuity. Us independently sticking Legends-exclusive names onto canon characters is total speculation, and the only thing it'd do for readers is feed them incorrect information. Tommy-Macaroni 11:26, July 7, 2020 (UTC)