In the discourse regarding Forum:TC:Various breads, specifically on Discord, the topic of incongruity came up in relation to how food should be treated in this manner. Specifically, the application of this clause of WP:DICT called into question in relation to food subjects:
- "The item's distinct lack of an otherworldly quality creates a unique incongruity. For example, in a universe with bacta and laser scalpels, why does a child have braces? And in a galaxy full of blasters, it's interesting when one lands on a planet dominated by swords."
- ―-WP Dict, bullet point #2
General confusion over how incongruity might apply to food in specific was brought into question. With technology, weapons, or substances, specific uses of these out of place topics or their relation to the setting could justify their notability. However, with food, it can be much more difficult to justify this. For example, see PB&J, one of the articles being voted on in the TC thread. While one could argue its existence as a real world subject constitutes incongruity, this would bring into question the incongruity of several other subjects, including non-food articles. Is the incongruity perhaps its ingredients? Its manner of preparation? Do we assume these things or only count them if stated in-universe? What if the ingredients are also IRL subjects, like peanut butter and jelly? Do we assume in-universe variants of them can be used, or only use the information we have confirmed?
This SH isn't to pinpoint the specific incongruities of these articles or even assume they have them - after all, their notability is in question already. Instead, I'm proposing that we discuss how incongruity might be better defined for food in specific, and what precisely would qualify real-world food subjects for a page on the Wook. If fruitful, then perhaps we could eventually progress to a CT proposal for changes or clarifications to the existing policy that helps us further define these aspects.
DFaceG (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
References (for the quote so it isn't floating beneath the discussion)
Comments/Discussion
- Just want to throw this out there without giving it a second thought for now: What if incongruity just cannot be applied to food in Star Wars at all? What if food cannot be considered incongruent at all because "non high-tech food" such as ours is so common in the SW universe and therefore "old-fashioned" food is nothing special (and therefore it doesn't deserve notability)? I could see that thing in a universe where there's only special high-tech food, and while I'm not really a SW food expert, I don't think that's we're facing here. CanePlayz
(Talk) 00:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC) - I've always been of the opinion that, similar to weapons, animals, etc., given the variety of "otherworldly" food and cuisine in Star Wars, any food introduced with a real-world counterpart is inherently notable and passes the incongruity rule. I don't see any reason to rule out types of bread and sandwiches in particular. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand, however, how that "otherwordly" food would make the use of real-world food incongruent. I don't feel like they've reinvented food and therefore made the use of normal food "weird" or "out of place" (which would give it notability). CanePlayz (Talk) 01:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the cases of weapons and animals there is often a specific use or context for its appearance that justifies the page's existence. The existence of non-IRL subjects should not be what we judge the notability of IRL subjects on, but rather their significance and justification for existing in-universe. DFaceG (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I basically feel the same way as sorcerer supreme here VergenceScatter (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand, however, how that "otherwordly" food would make the use of real-world food incongruent. I don't feel like they've reinvented food and therefore made the use of normal food "weird" or "out of place" (which would give it notability). CanePlayz
- The entire premise of this SH is off, as the unique incongruity clause only ever applies to technology and has never applied to food. The truth is that we simply do not have anything in the Notability policy/WP:DICT covering food at all - similarly to how we also don't have that for other non-technology subjects with real-world counterparts: professions, natural features, real-world species, etc. Imperators II(Talk) 06:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- If this is the case, I feel the clause should be clarified to indicate that it does not apply to certain topics more clearly. DFaceG (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Alternatively, since the community seems at least partially very interested in seeing these articles, WP:N/WP:DICT could be amended to just give all food with real-world counterparts automatic notability. Imperators II(Talk) 11:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- And this could/should be extended to other things you brought up as not being covered yet (not giving all of bit notability per se, but clear rules). CanePlayz (Talk) 11:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd support making all food articles with real-world counterparts notable, that Twitter thread showed there's plenty of interest from readers and I certainly always find it interesting when real food is used instead of newly made up stuff. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like this is difficult to ascertain though. Sure, water, grass, and bread are popular examples of pages that have gained interest based on IRL topics, but these specific pages also have notable aspects about them unique to Star Wars. Given the existence of the incongruity clause in the first place, I don't believe all pages without unique Star Wars traits should be removed, but I just don't think they're comparable to the pages in question that spurred this discussion. DFaceG (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this, and also want to bring in the following perspective: I know that it's coming from the real world counterpart and therefore the dictionary rule, but why should we treat food that exists in our world differently than SW-exclusive food? Both pieces of food can be right next to each other and they're just food IU, no matter if one exists in our universe as well or not. So it would feel kinda inconsistent, a problem you don't have with things articles pen not existing because of WP:DICT. CanePlayz
(Talk) 01:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- In general I've always seen the norm for Star Wars being making up new foods and organisms whenever they appear in-universe, hence stuff like caf being created to replace coffee. Because of this, I think real-life foods or organisms appearing in-universe is generally a notable exception to the norm when it does occur, making them notable but also fun and interesting trivia that I know I'm certainly interested in reading. For something like rye, which is not only a type of food, but also suggests the existence of a specific species of real-life plant in the universe, or pizza, which is a dish with a specific cultural history in real-life, I'd say it's especially notable. As such I'd say both article types should be exempt from the dictionary clause, which I think is most useful when applied to something like concepts (non-notable pages in the same vein as torture, prisoner, time etc) for which the norm is that the in-universe and out-of-universe definitions are the same. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I feel the same way. So what you're saying is in my opinion at least a little bit similar to the incongruity rule, however, it's special position is not defined by its quality being below that of more "high-tech" versions of it but by the fact that it even exists despite there being other made-up food that could be used, if I understood that correctly. CanePlayz (Talk) 01:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I feel the same way. So what you're saying is in my opinion at least a little bit similar to the incongruity rule, however, it's special position is not defined by its quality being below that of more "high-tech" versions of it but by the fact that it even exists despite there being other made-up food that could be used, if I understood that correctly. CanePlayz
- In general I've always seen the norm for Star Wars being making up new foods and organisms whenever they appear in-universe, hence stuff like caf being created to replace coffee. Because of this, I think real-life foods or organisms appearing in-universe is generally a notable exception to the norm when it does occur, making them notable but also fun and interesting trivia that I know I'm certainly interested in reading. For something like rye, which is not only a type of food, but also suggests the existence of a specific species of real-life plant in the universe, or pizza, which is a dish with a specific cultural history in real-life, I'd say it's especially notable. As such I'd say both article types should be exempt from the dictionary clause, which I think is most useful when applied to something like concepts (non-notable pages in the same vein as torture, prisoner, time etc) for which the norm is that the in-universe and out-of-universe definitions are the same. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- And this could/should be extended to other things you brought up as not being covered yet (not giving all of bit notability per se, but clear rules). CanePlayz
- Alternatively, since the community seems at least partially very interested in seeing these articles, WP:N/WP:DICT could be amended to just give all food with real-world counterparts automatic notability. Imperators II(Talk) 11:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- If this is the case, I feel the clause should be clarified to indicate that it does not apply to certain topics more clearly. DFaceG (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
