Hey all, there's some discussion on this talk page regarding it's notability. It's been challenged based on a clause of the notability policy that in my opinion is outdated and needs to be either revised or revoked. The original CT was designed early in the addition of new canon policies, and as such doesn't necessarily reflect how we should operate in the current day. Additionally, as you can read in the log for a Mofference discussing this clause from last year, several users called this policy into question, though it was ultimately kept.
I'd like to open a discussion for this clause and gauge how the community feels about it. In my opinion, we're holding ourselves back from creating articles that otherwise would be perfectly fine if they hadn't come from a film. Depending on how this discussion goes, I'd be interested in creating a CT addressing this issue. RattsT (talk) 16:14, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
- I definitely think that our notability policy is worth revising. It seems kinda arbitrary that the bounty hunter on Ord Mantell isn't eligible for an article, especially when they've been mentioned in multiple sources, not to mention that there were multiple characters created to be the "bounty hunter on Ord Mantell" in Legends. I've also noticed that unidentified subjects from from outside the six films/TCW have been subject to deletion under our notability policies. To bring up an example, the bounty hunter that scarred Cornelius Evazan's face is mentioned in multiple canonical sources. Under any other circumstance they'd have their own unidentified article, but Jodo Kast's very existence prevents this character from having a page until they're assigned a name. I don't think these policies as they currently exist really have a place in our current era of canon coverage. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 16:41, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
- Even though I was the one who pulled the policy card on said page above, and sorry to say AV I also did on your one too :P But I am also in favour of revising the policy --Lewisr (talk) 22:24, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree that the policy is warranted a revision, and I believe that the Ord Mantell bounty hunter should stay.--TheTrooperGuy (talk) 19:22, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
- I believe these subjects are similar to pages like Han Solo's father or Darth Bane's apprentice pre move to Darth Zannah, in that they warrant a canon page because we don't know that the individuals in that role in canon are the same person as in Legends. Ord Mantell bounty hunter being case in point, given the multiple alternate accounts in Legends aside from the "official" one. Toqgers (talk) 20:09, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree that the policy is warranted a revision, and I believe that the Ord Mantell bounty hunter should stay.--TheTrooperGuy (talk) 19:22, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
- Even though I was the one who pulled the policy card on said page above, and sorry to say AV I also did on your one too :P But I am also in favour of revising the policy --Lewisr (talk) 22:24, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that Canon has matured enough (and probably has been mature enough for a few years now) for this to change. Subjects' notability should be based on whether they're notable enough IU, not on their relation to other continuities. Do note, however, that we will need at least 32 votes to repel the amendment. 1358 (Talk) 12:56, June 29, 2020 (UTC)