Forum:CT:Drawing the line: IU vs OOU

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Drawing the line: IU vs OOU

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 no consensus. jSarek 03:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Where do we draw the line on whether something deserves an article or not? Certainly we don't have an article on words like [[The]] or [[Oh]] (thanks, Fourdot), but why not? Because these are not specific to aurebesh, but existes in the real world as well? But by that same token, why do we have an article on ducks and Humans, then? Neither are specific to Star Wars, and we cannot prove that they have any inherent qualities that set them apart from their real-life counterparts. Cantinas, starships, aliens, none are SW-specific, but have their own articles because they hold significance IU and in the collective fan consciousness. It is common sense, you say. And I agree, but where do we draw the line?

I would make a Poll for you to vote on, but I don't have any suggestions to give you. DarthMRN 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I say we draw the line at what a realistic encyclopedia would stop at. Which would include minor non-existent things. We're not a dictionary, so [[The]] and [[Oh]] are bad examples, but by the same token, Nostril of Palpatine is a textbook example of what we should not, under any circumstance, have. .... 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That is too vague for a policy. AFAIK, the creator of an encyclopedia sets the limit, and there are far too many of us for that. It would mean voting over every stub we have. And obviously, we cannot follow the example set by Wikipedia, or we might as well shut down completely. DarthMRN 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The guideline I've been keeping in my head is that if an IU subject would probably have an article in the Star Wars galaxy's Wikipedia, and its content would be expected to be substantially different from a real-world encyclopedia article, it's fine. So Duck gets an article because its article mentions Naboo and four-winged variants, Denhui-Eight gets an article because it's an entire inhabited planet (even though we only have a couple of sentences worth of info), Bimkall Sector is admittedly a borderline case because they might have VFD'd it on the HoloNet's wikis, but some marginal articles which describe something which exists in Star Wars pretty much exactly as it does in the real world (like Love) isn't needed. Now everyone please tell me the giant holes in my half-baked reasoning. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I love it. You put into words what I was struggling to reconcile with my mostly-hyperinclusionist doctrine :) I'll set us up the vote. (Hey, that works grammatically! How 'bout that?) This is very much needed, as Breast illustrates. Gonk (Gonk!) 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The SillyDan Test

"The guideline I've been keeping in my head is that if an IU subject would probably have an article in the Star Wars galaxy's Wikipedia, and its content would be expected to be substantially different from a real-world encyclopedia article, it's fine. So Duck gets an article because its article mentions Naboo and four-winged variants, Denhui-Eight gets an article because it's an entire inhabited planet (even though we only have a couple of sentences worth of info), Bimkall Sector is admittedly a borderline case because they might have VFD'd it on the HoloNet's wikis, but some marginal articles which describe something which exists in Star Wars pretty much exactly as it does in the real world (like Love) aren't needed."

Support

  1. Gonk (Gonk!) 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. That sounds good. So, no anatomy unless it's dramatically different? Chack Jadson 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems that way to me. Though I hate to deprive so many users of the only action they'll ever get. (KIDDING!) Gonk (Gonk!) 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. The HoloNet Wikipedia policy. I can't see how anything could go wrong by supporting this. DarthMRN 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Atarumaster88 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Good. Fnlayson 03:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Sikon 06:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. "If it's canon..." we should have seperate articles at The Emperor, Palpatine, Emperor Palpatine, Darth Sidious, Lord Sidious, Senator Palpatine, President Palpatine, Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, [[Benedict-16]], [[Galactic Emperor Palpatine]], [[Bobo]], and Palpatine the Undying. All canon. All legit. Sure, they refer to the same person, but why should that make a difference? .... 07:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. CooperTFN 08:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 13:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Darth Seth (Chewbacca lives!) 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Object

  1. Not a bad idea, but badly expressed. It's much too subjective and brings up the question of notability in a way that does more harm than good to innocuous inclusionist articles. Frankly, I don't see what the huge deal is. We document canon. Period. If it's canon, we have it. Breasts are canon and they have some odd things going on to note specific to Star Wars. Limbs have some odd things going on, so we throw in a little bit about tentacles and Dugs and use it as a soft redirect to Wikipedia. How does that hurt anyone? Havac 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. What's canon is canon. But I agree that it does need a reference to or usage in the GFFA to be considered legit for the IU authors of Wookieepedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. While I like parts of SillyDan's idea, it doesn't hold up when it comes to notability, as Havac said. -- Ozzel 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. In principle, I couldn't agree more, but until we can better define what shouldn't be included, this will just generate conflicts. Evir Daal 08:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per above. Adamwankenobi 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Wookieepedia shows how much the Star Wars galaxy differs from our own. I think it should also show in what ways the two galaxies are similar. --Azizlight 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per Azizlight. I'd hate to see [[Bow (weapon)/Legends|Bow (weapon)]] get deleted. -LtNOWIS 05:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, that article would be OK. The bows in Star Wars can take out soldiers in polyceramic armour, and are frequently used by teddy bears. This is not true of real-world bows. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. QuentinGeorge 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC) - No way.
  9. Love the idea, and I couldn't agree more, but the problem is this is way too subjective. I highly doubt anyone could really agree what would go in an encyclopedia in the GFFA.Din's Fire 997 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Darned close to what I would want to see as a reasonableness test, but it still needs to be refined before being accepted. Currently too subjective. Very much on the right track though, and this does need to be resolved soon, as the nostril of palpatine and breast articles indicate. Serendipitousus 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Close, but I agree with what most of the above said. Kuralyov 06:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Ditto. KEJ 07:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

To prevent instruction creep, let's think of this as a guideline and never refer to it as policy, ok? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Definitely. Note my use of the word "test." Gonk (Gonk!) 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • For Obi's sake, we need a policy, not a guideline. What is too open for subjective interpretation about: "If it varies from real life, it's in. If not, it's out"? DarthMRN 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think the proposed policy, we would exclude the breast article. Because it's content does vary significantly from a real-world encyclopedia. -LtNOWIS 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • When I wrote it, I didn't have any particular article in mind (really!): I just wanted to comment on the sort of criteria that come to my mind. It is subjective: most borderline IU articles could have different people interpreting this guideline as for or against inclusion. Maybe someone else could improve or reword this guideline? —Silly Dan (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The thing I keep coming back to when I go to articles like Breast, Music and Water is wondering who would ever link to them? Now, obviously there are a few links to Water, but there ought to be hundreds, maybe thousands more if the article's that important. That says something, and may be a good additional guideline. Otherwise, we really will have articles on things like Death and Power. Gonk (Gonk!) 01:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Definitely just a guideline. Anyways, it would be too vague for a policy. Now some articles, like water, I actually think are good. They allow us to show exactly what has been revealed about it in the Star Wars universe. Of course, there are a few—breasts—that just take this too far IMO. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know if Water is the best example. What would the SWU ever reveal about it that is untrue of RL water? However, Planet is one that a strong argument could be made in either direction for. I guess I just feel like we're insulting our readers if, instead of "Luke squinted when he got water in his eye," we have "Luke squinted when he got water in his eye." Gonk (Gonk!) 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Planet is probably the best example of when it's acceptable - GFFA planets, after all, have all kinds of characteristics that aren't necessarily true of real planets, or at least aren't known for certain; Naboo, anyone? CooperTFN 05:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just for my own clarity about the guideline: "If something exists in both real-world and GFFA, only add it to Wookieepedia if there is something unique about it in GFFA." Would that seem correct? - Esjs(Talk) 00:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Eh? I just thought it was basically if, in regards to IU articles, an IU encyclopedia would have the article, or would it not? Thefourdotelipsis 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm kinda honing in on the last sentence of the "guideline." It seems to say (to me) that we don't need articles on things that are exactly the same in both universes. - Esjs(Talk) 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • It should have some relevance in the GFFA. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Just so we're clear: this excludes individuals, ships, and other "proper noun" things, right? Because I kind of doubt they'd have Jon or CT-014/783 in an in-universe encyclopedia. -LtNOWIS 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
            • This is why I called it half-baked reasoning. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)