Forum:Defining our project

Currently, there is a lot of unevenness in the way we treat certain articles, as well as a lot of confusion over whether our project should or does cover certain types of articles. I thought it'd be a good idea to formally decide what types of articles we want to cover in our project, and what types we do not. Here are some of the categories of articles that may or may not fall under our purview:

So, the question is, should we cover all of these categories? Should we drop a few we currently cover? Should we add a few we currently leave out? And, most importantly, how should we handle some of the categories for which we currently seem to be doing two different things (such as semi-sentient species)? ~ SavageBob 02:08, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

This has been sitting here for a while, and I am sorry that it has taken me so long to get to it. Let me number off my thoughts by row:

1. I agree with the table.
2. I think it would be okay to include all semi-sentient species, given that I would definitely want to include some. Therefore, I would be happy to add Wampa to the Project.
3. I agree with the table.
4. I think it would be okay to exclude these ones from the project, similar to how we have treated Leafar, etc. If their sentience is confirmed, IU or OOU, then then can be included at that point.
5. I agree with the table.
6. I agree with the table.
7. I would lean toward removing cultures from the scope of our Project. That might mean "losing" Amar, but I think that would be okay. I may just be saying that because I dread including Corellian in our Project!
8. I agree with the table.
9. I would prefer not to include these in the Project, or at least not within the count of articles. The idea being that I use that to measure how far we have progressed in covering all known species. Perhaps we need an affiliate articles category so that the connection can be maintained without it affecting the count.
10. I agree with the table.

I guess that means I want to take a firmer line for the Project to be only sentient and semi-sentient species. --Eyrezer 11:17, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

• I see where you're going. My thinking was actually that, rather than include all semi-sentient species, we make a distinction between those that act like animals, and those that act like "people." In other words, the mimphs in the Ewoks cartoons and the Ranats in the WEG stuff fill the role of "people," intelligent characters who wear clothes, wield tools, and interact with characters more or less like equals. However, the wampa is universally treated as a beast, a dumb creature, something for a hero to kill and get on with it. In other words, the question for officially semi-sentient beings becomes, "How is it used in stories?" The only possibly (still) ambiguous semi-sentient species then would be bordok, but, there, I'd still place them on the side of beasts, as that's how the Ewoks treat them.
• I agree with most of your opinions above except on cultures. I'd lean toward including them, but that's just preference; I have no sound reasoning for it. :)
• As for peripherally related stuff, like articles on sentientologists, I like the idea of including them, but that'd be cool to put them in some sort of affiliate category. How would that work? ~Savage 16:57, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, now that I think about it, if we're going to kick out stuff like Leafar, which is unambiguously a culture of some kind, we should kick out Human cultures and the like too. So, I agree that we should exclude A'Mar, Corellian, etc. ~Savage 17:22, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm, your suggestion for semi-sentient species may prove tricky in practice. I would suggest that the wampas in Darksaber are not treated as just dumb beasts. Toprawa has captured several examples of wampas being treated closer to sentient. Are you aware of a list of semi-sentient species?
    • In terms of cultures, it looks like we will also have to cut Salissian.
    • How about an "Honorary" category for Obo Rin etc? --Eyrezer 10:29, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean about semi-sentients. I'd be cool with taking them all in, then. As for a category or definitive list of semi-sentient species, I don't think there is one. Perhaps we should create Category:Semi-sentient species to be an analog to Category:Sentient species? A Google search for < "semi-sentient" site:starwars.wikis.com > should net us most relevant articles; I might have some time to tag them in the next week or so once I get my schoolwork beaten into submission.
      • As for the honorary category, that's not a bad idea. Maybe some sort of section where we list "Related articles" with a note that we don't count them in our numbers, but consider them under our stewardship nonetheless. We could put the undefined social groups in there too, maybe. ~Savage 15:43, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
      • Check out the minty-fresh Category:Semi-sentient species! There aren't all that many. We should probably check to make sure all of these get listed on the Coordinate Challenge map. ~Savage 07:13, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
• Nice! So, I have amended the above table to where I think we have reached. How does this look? --Eyrezer 10:34, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me! Maybe we should sum up what we do include somewhere on the main project page. I'll take a look later this weekend unless you beat me to it. ;) ~Savage 17:06, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Whew! I've updated all appropriate templates and pages to reflect our discussion here (the inclusion of semi-sentients, the exclusion of Human cultures and "affiliate" articles like Obo Rin). Please check behind me to make sure I didn't miss something or miscount the new numbers. By my count, we lost A'Mar, Convention of Civilized Systems, and Obo Rin from FA, but gained Korriban zombie, Sea Leviathan, and wampa, for no net change in numbers. We lost Salissian from GA, but gained cliff wampa, for no net change there either. I then updated the Coordinate Challenge page, portfolio pages, and year-by-year page. ~Savage 19:49, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah; I also created a showcase for our "related articles." Feel free to tweak the wording or color of the boxy thing on the main project page. I've used the Greedo head logo for its icon for the moment, but something in the same color scheme as the other three icons would be preferable. ~Savage 19:51, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
    • How would you feel about including category #8 in the Honorary mentions section? --Eyrezer 20:42, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
      • As I see it, Category 8 should be stuff that we keep an eye on and maintain, but which we don't consider our main focus. Since this project's members are the ones who pay most attention to stuff like the undefined social groups, etc., why not include them in the related category? Yeah, I agree with that idea. ~Savage 00:34, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Notes and references