Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Detours Deluge
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:51, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
It's time we start talking about this. As Star Wars Detours makes its regrettable entrance into the SW (non-canon) universe, many real-world references will be made. This illustrates my point well. Should we create articles for real-life things like burrito, stopwatch? This is bound to generate confusion, so some discussion on this would be helpful. Stake black msg 00:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- From a reader's viewpoint - if an article is created for every single real-life object that appears in "Detours", then there'll need to be hundreds, or thousands of new articles. Most of which are in actuality irrelevant and don't really contribute to Wookieepedia.
- My two cents would be to create articles only for objects that have a prominent or important appearance in the series. Basically, only an object that can sustain it's own article based purely upon SW in-universe information. There's no point having a "burrito" article if it's just going to be a copy of the wikipedia page. Jamie Jones54842 (talk) 01:04, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that we should just shunt all the Detours info off into its own wiki. The Bts portions of the featured characters are going to get unwieldy after a while. And, unless you want every character to have a "youmay" directing the reader to "So-and-so (Detours)," it would simply be better and cleaner to just shunt it off to its own Detours-centric wiki. Trak Nar Ramble on 06:09, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Trak. JangFett (Talk) 06:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with Trak! Seth Green should have plenty of time to contribute to the proposed Detours-centric wiki upon the shows evident cancellation. Rokkur Shen (talk) 07:14, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- And what would be the rationale for this? How is Detours fundamentally different from, e.g., LEGO Star Wars in terms of contributions to SW (non)canon? Stake black msg 10:38, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that we should just shunt all the Detours info off into its own wiki. The Bts portions of the featured characters are going to get unwieldy after a while. And, unless you want every character to have a "youmay" directing the reader to "So-and-so (Detours)," it would simply be better and cleaner to just shunt it off to its own Detours-centric wiki. Trak Nar Ramble on 06:09, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- OH DEAR GOD NO KILL IT WITH FIRE NOW--ahem, I mean, let it have its own wiki, where it can
rot in hellthrive and expand without interfering with canon content. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 16:38, January 6, 2013 (UTC)- Sure, but we still need articles at least for the characters, no? Stake black msg 16:43, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree with the sentiment here, I think shunting Detours off because it's silly and non-canon would be a bad precedent. Indeed, precedent is overwhelmingly against this tact, as we have many status articles on non-canon topics, such as Guybrush Threepkiller, Lurdo, and Tao. And just check Category:Non-canon articles for more examples of stuff we've included. Why should Detours be different? ~Savage
19:20, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Bob on this. Even if we don't really like the show, it is an officially licensed, although non-canon work. Isn't the stuff in the Lego games still given a mention in the BTS of status articles to mention any inconsistencies or new elements?--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 19:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- We should treat Detours the same way we treat other non-canon official sources: articles for the main things only, so no burritos. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:34, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but isn't that arbitrary? What's a "main thing" in the first place? Stake black msg 19:38, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, we don't always cover everything canon either... Depending on your wikia philosophy—mergist, inclusionist and so on—you may or may not keep certain articles. We've kept handshake, but there has been debate. Same thing for pillow. Others have been deleted, though. As an inclusionist myself, having many articles on real-life objects in Star Wars doesn't bother me, but this is not necessarily a shared opinion. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:42, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm mainly with Lelal here. Like algae, common real-world things get an article if they contribute something new/different than what we know here on Earth. Though usually I include "contribute to canon" in that sentence... —Xwing328(Talk) 18:38, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds fair, but I guess what really worries me is pop culture references. I don't know, I'm really expecting the worst from this whole thing. Stake black msg 19:26, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
- If the subject matter shares something with a canon subject, mention it in that subject's Bts. If it contributes something entirely new and worth an article, make one. Episodes and related material would get articles. Real-world and pop culture stuff... unless it pertains to a canonical subject in some way, best shunt that off to its own wiki, with a Bts mention in its related subject's article, with a link to the other wiki for more information. That might be the best way to handle it and to keep the real-world stuff off of here. On that other wiki, burrito articles can be made to your heart's content. Here, however, no. Trak Nar Ramble on 08:27, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- That might be a good rule of thumb: new Star Wars-specific things get articles, such as new characters, locations, vehicles, etc. But anything that is an obvious reference to the real world only gets an article if it's also mentioned in a canon source (like the stuff List of references to Earth in Star Wars|here). Burrito would fall into this latter category. ~Savage 12:44, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- That might be a good rule of thumb: new Star Wars-specific things get articles, such as new characters, locations, vehicles, etc. But anything that is an obvious reference to the real world only gets an article if it's also mentioned in a canon source (like the stuff List of references to Earth in Star Wars|here). Burrito would fall into this latter category. ~Savage
- If the subject matter shares something with a canon subject, mention it in that subject's Bts. If it contributes something entirely new and worth an article, make one. Episodes and related material would get articles. Real-world and pop culture stuff... unless it pertains to a canonical subject in some way, best shunt that off to its own wiki, with a Bts mention in its related subject's article, with a link to the other wiki for more information. That might be the best way to handle it and to keep the real-world stuff off of here. On that other wiki, burrito articles can be made to your heart's content. Here, however, no. Trak Nar Ramble on 08:27, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds fair, but I guess what really worries me is pop culture references. I don't know, I'm really expecting the worst from this whole thing. Stake black msg 19:26, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm mainly with Lelal here. Like algae, common real-world things get an article if they contribute something new/different than what we know here on Earth. Though usually I include "contribute to canon" in that sentence... —Xwing328(Talk) 18:38, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, we don't always cover everything canon either... Depending on your wikia philosophy—mergist, inclusionist and so on—you may or may not keep certain articles. We've kept handshake, but there has been debate. Same thing for pillow. Others have been deleted, though. As an inclusionist myself, having many articles on real-life objects in Star Wars doesn't bother me, but this is not necessarily a shared opinion. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:42, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but isn't that arbitrary? What's a "main thing" in the first place? Stake black msg 19:38, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- We should treat Detours the same way we treat other non-canon official sources: articles for the main things only, so no burritos. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:34, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Bob on this. Even if we don't really like the show, it is an officially licensed, although non-canon work. Isn't the stuff in the Lego games still given a mention in the BTS of status articles to mention any inconsistencies or new elements?--Exiled Jedi
I think that's a good compromise. Stake black msg 13:09, January 8, 2013 (UTC)