Forum:CT:Notability of non-sentient species

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. OOM 224 22:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Hi all, yes I'm dropping another CT because it's christmas, it's a 2-for-1 sale!

I didn't bring this to discussion first because it is so straightforward it'll either pass or fail without much room for argument. I may be wrong and forced to eat my words, but hey, it's a christmas sale!

Proposal is to expand the existing Notability policy pertaining to sentient species to include non-sentient species. That is, removing any mention of species and changing "characters" to "character/creatures".

This will stop a lot of one-shot articles for creatures briefly seen in the various tv shows, books, etc as background additions, such as Unidentified flying serpent (Yes I'm nuking my own CAN). It should be noted that no other changes are being made, so creatures seen in packs could potentially still get an article. Creatures that provide plot point would also get an article on their own merit as an individual, without a corresponding species article. Updates to the policy noted in bold:

Sentient Species

If an individual is of a unique and unnamed sentient species that does not appear elsewhere, that species should not receive an article; instead, the character/creature's physical appearance should be described in the individual's article. Generic background character/creatures should not receive species articles. However, if two or more character/creatures are of the same unidentified species, that species may receive an article. Exceptions can be made for single-member species that are particularly notable. A species must have one of the following to necessitate an article: A canonical name. Multiple members. For example: Yoda's species or Eero Iridian's species. Significant development/behind the scenes information, such as inspiration. For example: Red pachydermoid species. A species may only receive an article based on this clause if no corresponding character article exists for that species. A homeworld that has been specifically mentioned or appeared, and has been specifically identified as the species' homeworld. Significant backstory or accomplishments that have been directly attributed to the species. For example: Those who came before. Significant description and identification as a unique species in dialogue. For example: The Warlord's species. → See Wookieepedia:Mofferences/January 26, 2014 → See Wookieepedia:Mofferences/March 6, 2016

Support

Manoof (he/him/his) 13:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 13:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• This should have been taken to SH first. :P Right now, I can't support this change because of the implications of applying this same policy to non-sapient lifeforms. For creatures, the policy as proposed would say, in no uncertain terms, that a creature fleetingly described in a novel as "a native lizard" (with no significant description or plot role) 100% has the right to have a separate article of its own, and that a nameless reptavian that is only seen in one comic panel 100% has the right to have a separate article of its own as long as we see 2+ such reptavians. Also, I don't think the "identification as a unique species in dialogue" clause should be applied to creatures as well. Think "a native lizard species" (also with no significant description or plot role). If it were explicitly referred to as a "species" this policy would automatically grant it a separate article, which I don't think is a route we want to take. We're only applying this particular clause to sentients because they're supposed to be such a relatively rare and therefore significant phenomenon compared to the unfathomable amount of non-sentient species. To conclude, I believe the currently proposed policy wording says that the above hypothetical cases would have the right to have separate articles of their own, and I think that's a Pandora's box that we should avoid opening. Imperators II^(Talk) 14:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll eat my words *nomnomnom* Manoof (he/him/his) 00:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Ditto. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)