Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Etymology
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. 1358 (Talk) 19:36, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
Many articles contain a paragraph or two on etymology. Palpatine's behind the scenes sections, chiseled with Praxitelean precision long ago, include the Taxi Driver etymology, Palatine Hill and "palpate," while making it clear that, "the real-world origin of the name 'Palpatine,' meaning the reason George Lucas should have chosen this name for the character, is not known." Shaak Ti's behind the scenes section also mentions that "Shaak Ti" is, phoetically, the same with the Hindu "Shakti." I have always wanted to see all the Darths receive possible etymologies in their articles. For example, Darth Ikoral, the Sith Lord from Star Wars: The Old Republic obsessed with Sith blood purity, is a very cleverly devised Darth name, and I wanted to mention it behind the scenes. I also noticed that Palpatine's dad's first name is the same as that of a real individual, a Thracian general of antiquity. I added that in the article, and it was removed as fanon. I am not sure I understand the term "fanon" itself, but I don't think I'd like an etymology. Unless it means, "common sense?"
I really wish to see more etymologies that do not derive from official sources. If there is a place for a casual statement made in an interview or an online message board to be quoted as if it were the Divine Logos in the main page, there is place for etymologies behind the scenes. Who knows, maybe someone out there speaks a language in which Darth Vowrawn means something, and everyone should know what it is! --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 23:10, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
- See here on our policy on why you can't add it in unless it's sourced. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 12:26, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, that's just what I was hoping for, getting more insipid bureucracy dumped on me instead of a discussion on the merits and/or drawbacks of current policy. So what does one have to do to formally challenge current policy, make an appeal to the People's Commissariat for Stupid Rules and Strangulatory Regulations? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:17, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Check here for the community's decision on what we can put in BTS sections. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 14:28, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- So, from what I understand—as a casual reader, for I sadly hold no specialized academic degree on online user-contributed encyclopedia bureaucracy—etymologies are allowed in the behind the scenes sections under the current regime. "Obvious real-life correlations and similarities are allowed, as long as no un-sourced direct connection is stated." It is obvious, though unsourced, that "Palpatine" is related to both "Palpate" and "Palatine Hill," that Cosinga shares his name with Cosingas ("Cosinga" = accusative of "Cosingas"), that "Shaak Ti" is another spelling of "Shakti," "Darth Ikoral" another spelling of "Darth Ichoral," etc etc. So I can add it, though unsourced. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:47, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- No that's speculation. You cannot put that in the BTS secion because there's no source and it's all either speculation or original research. <- Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 14:51, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Give me an example of the difference between "obvious real-life correlations and similarities"" and "speculation or original research" please. Perhaps from the examples I provided? "Darth Ikoral" I get. (The mind-stretching stupidity of having a rule on not stating obvious connections is another matter.) But why is "a real Cosinga existed, no known connection with the SW character" speculation? Why is "Shakti is a Hindu religious term and goddess, no known connection with the SW character" speculation? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:03, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- In short, those last two things you mentioned would be fine to add. To clarify, to say that "It is possible that the name "Cosinga Palpatine" is derived from the fanon notion that Palpatine's personal name is Cos." without any official source is speculation/original research and not allowed. However, to say that "Cosingas was the name of the Cebrenii tribe's chieftain, as mentioned by the Macedonian writer Polyaenus." is simply making a connection to an obvious similarity (here, the same name) with something in the real world. The line would be drawn at saying something like "Cosinga Palpatine's name was presumably derived from Cosingas, the chieftain..." because we don't know if the author intended that or not (which is where the official source would come in). You don't need to say "no known connection with" though, it's implied not to have a connection unless otherwise said so anyway, and it isn't fitting with Wookieepedia's style to word it like that. nayayen★talk 15:18, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- That much I understood, but thank you for clarifying. As for the Darth names: I don't know whether any sources mention what Nihilus means, but the meaning is painfully obvious (really, it'll hurt your brain). Ikoral sounds pretty obvious to me, as well. You can't say that "X means, or could mean, Y," but you can say, "X is X; Y is Y, draw your own conclusions." What would the proper way to put Darth etymologies behind the scenes be? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:28, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Check out the article on Halloween for one way to do this. You can source the real-world meaning to a dictionary, say. ~Savage
16:12, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. So, again, just because I like to repeat it: One can add information that is not sourced. Lets hope it's done more often. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 16:35, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Less often is actually the target here. What one user thinks is obvious is often just complete speculation. Drawing on one of your examples, that "Palpatine" is related to both "Palpate" and "Palatine Hill" is not obvious; it's both speculation and original research. Ditto the Cosingas thing. "X is X and Y is Y; draw your own conclusions" is the exception rather than the rule, and should only be used in rare cases where an obvious similarity exists between X and Y. Eg, the Romany connection in Droma, and the sentient ocean connection in Solanus. If there's no obvious connection between the article's subject and something else with a similar name, then noting said something else is completely irrelevant to the article. Menkooroo 05:10, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, I was just being incendiary. I want to see the bureaucracy challenged as often as possible, not see a herd of clueless bastards loose on the behind the scenes sections noting that Noa Briqualon had an nose, just like Woodrow Wilson. And second, your drawing of a line between Droma and Solanus and Cosingas and Palatine Hill is completely arbitrary. Why is one obvious and the other not? Because you believe so? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 09:45, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Less often is actually the target here. What one user thinks is obvious is often just complete speculation. Drawing on one of your examples, that "Palpatine" is related to both "Palpate" and "Palatine Hill" is not obvious; it's both speculation and original research. Ditto the Cosingas thing. "X is X and Y is Y; draw your own conclusions" is the exception rather than the rule, and should only be used in rare cases where an obvious similarity exists between X and Y. Eg, the Romany connection in Droma, and the sentient ocean connection in Solanus. If there's no obvious connection between the article's subject and something else with a similar name, then noting said something else is completely irrelevant to the article. Menkooroo 05:10, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. So, again, just because I like to repeat it: One can add information that is not sourced. Lets hope it's done more often. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 16:35, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Check out the article on Halloween for one way to do this. You can source the real-world meaning to a dictionary, say. ~Savage
- That much I understood, but thank you for clarifying. As for the Darth names: I don't know whether any sources mention what Nihilus means, but the meaning is painfully obvious (really, it'll hurt your brain). Ikoral sounds pretty obvious to me, as well. You can't say that "X means, or could mean, Y," but you can say, "X is X; Y is Y, draw your own conclusions." What would the proper way to put Darth etymologies behind the scenes be? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:28, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- In short, those last two things you mentioned would be fine to add. To clarify, to say that "It is possible that the name "Cosinga Palpatine" is derived from the fanon notion that Palpatine's personal name is Cos." without any official source is speculation/original research and not allowed. However, to say that "Cosingas was the name of the Cebrenii tribe's chieftain, as mentioned by the Macedonian writer Polyaenus." is simply making a connection to an obvious similarity (here, the same name) with something in the real world. The line would be drawn at saying something like "Cosinga Palpatine's name was presumably derived from Cosingas, the chieftain..." because we don't know if the author intended that or not (which is where the official source would come in). You don't need to say "no known connection with" though, it's implied not to have a connection unless otherwise said so anyway, and it isn't fitting with Wookieepedia's style to word it like that. nayayen★talk 15:18, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Give me an example of the difference between "obvious real-life correlations and similarities"" and "speculation or original research" please. Perhaps from the examples I provided? "Darth Ikoral" I get. (The mind-stretching stupidity of having a rule on not stating obvious connections is another matter.) But why is "a real Cosinga existed, no known connection with the SW character" speculation? Why is "Shakti is a Hindu religious term and goddess, no known connection with the SW character" speculation? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:03, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- No that's speculation. You cannot put that in the BTS secion because there's no source and it's all either speculation or original research. <- Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 14:51, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- So, from what I understand—as a casual reader, for I sadly hold no specialized academic degree on online user-contributed encyclopedia bureaucracy—etymologies are allowed in the behind the scenes sections under the current regime. "Obvious real-life correlations and similarities are allowed, as long as no un-sourced direct connection is stated." It is obvious, though unsourced, that "Palpatine" is related to both "Palpate" and "Palatine Hill," that Cosinga shares his name with Cosingas ("Cosinga" = accusative of "Cosingas"), that "Shaak Ti" is another spelling of "Shakti," "Darth Ikoral" another spelling of "Darth Ichoral," etc etc. So I can add it, though unsourced. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:47, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Check here for the community's decision on what we can put in BTS sections. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 14:28, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, that's just what I was hoping for, getting more insipid bureucracy dumped on me instead of a discussion on the merits and/or drawbacks of current policy. So what does one have to do to formally challenge current policy, make an appeal to the People's Commissariat for Stupid Rules and Strangulatory Regulations? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:17, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
- I think that this is matter of just applying reasonable judgement. If it seems beyond reasonable doubt that there is a connection between two things, then there is no harm in implying a connection. However, if there is some reasonable degree of uncertainty then it is best to err of the side of caution and not imply a connection, because to do so would be potentially misleading. In the case of Palpatine, it is therefore perhaps best not to imply a connection between him and Palatine Hill, because it does not appear beyond reasonable doubt that his name is a reference to that. There are many other words that sound similar to Palpatine, such as Palpa in Peru, or Palpata, a type of worm, so it is original research to assume that your interpretation is the correct one. I admit that the line between a valid implied connection and original research is not always clear, but it is just a case of applying some common sense. On a secondary note, I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to achieve by your campaign against "bureaucracy." Wookieepedia's policies and procedures are all voted on by the community and implemented with the intent of maintaining high standards. They are not there to stifle individual users, merely to ensure that the site operates in accordance with the views of the majority. To that end, if you have any genuine policy concerns then just discuss them in the Senate Hall and if other users agree, you can implement a policy change in the Consensus Track forum. There is no need to "challenge" anyone, and I don’t think that it is fair to describe Wookieepedia users as "clueless bastards," as most users here are more informed than that. I mean to cause you no offence and I hope that your concerns can be resolved peacefully. --Jinzler 10:31, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- My problem with the website is very simple: It's full of inaccurate information, sloppy scholarship, and a fixation on form over content. I wouldn't be here if there was any other place with such a wealth of SW information. I come looking for something, and I see mistakes and inaccuracies that result from cursory and irresponsible (for an encyclopedian) reading. But the infoboxes always look nice and shiny! Pointless autistic debates about technobabble related—I suspect—to the site's appearance stretch on and on. And yet when I make an edit with the desire to bring some serious scholarship to an article, I'm being rude because I challenged X rule. When I add a link behind the scenes enriching the article, it's "fanon." Meanwhile, the Jedi Kalatosh Zavros is listed as a Sith. But no, Palatine Hill is the real problem! Fie, fie, that a link to Palatine Hill would exist in the behind the scenes section of the Palpatine article, I tell you brethren, it will bring disease into our nerdy house! All the rules and regulations are clogging the place and inviting an autistic attitude, that's why I'm on a "campaign against bureaucracy." --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 10:46, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- While I have my doubts that adding a reference to Palatine Hill constitutes "serious scholarship," we have a policy against original research that arguably forbids such speculative connections. The reasoning is that Wookieepedia is not the correct venue for original arguments or novel propositions. We are designed to regurgitate information that others have produced. It's in our DNA and sense of purpose. If you want a place to propose a theory that the Neimoidians symbolize Erwin Rommel or that the Rancor is a metaphor for neoliberalism, you need to find a different website to do so. As for trivial connections like the Palpatine/Palatine Hill link you've proposed, it's borderline between being original research (à la the Rancor thing I just made up) and perhaps acceptable. So call for a discussion on the Palpatine talk page and hash it out with folks. You seem like an intelligent fellow, and I'd like to see you stick around, but I just want to make sure you understand that this place isn't designed for "serious scholarship." If you think we should move in that direction, the correct course of action would be to challenge the no original research aspect of our bureaucracy/rules. ~Savage 13:53, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a place designed for serious scholarship, you say? Then why call it an encyclopedia? Why not "Wookiee-Star-Wars-related-information-dumbing-site-ea?" Why the rule on citations, why all the fuss, if the information here is not held to a high scholarly standard? I do agree with you that regurgitated information is the raison d'être of Wookieepedia, but this has to be done properly. And in thousands of articles, it is not, leaving out important—usually "unpopular"—information, including inaccuracies and assumptions, many instances of bad prose, etc. I must also repeat what I wrote about above: Saying that "Palatine Hill is an important historical site in Rome" and that "Cosingas was a Thracian general" in the behind the scenes sections is not the same as saying, "It was a dark and stormy night of dreary November in the year 1973 when George Lucas, a young and idealistic filmmaker, first scribbled the words, Palpatine = possible name for bad guy, see: Palatine Hill on a legal pad." The second case is understandably unacceptable, the first helpful and informative, because a Star Wars encyclopedia is a place for possible etymologies, just like any encyclopedia. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:19, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- When I use the term "serious scholarship," I'm talking about forming original opinions and original arguments, and then supporting those arguments with evidence. Encyclopedias like this one are about regurgitated evidence only. (I mean, try submitting something with no argument as a term paper in a graduate seminar and see what happens.) We do "scholarship" in a sense, in that we aspire to high standards of accuracy. But my understanding of your position is that you are advocating for more leeway to do the original research, which is a no-no here. I thus have a few suggestions for you if you wish to effect change here. First, take the chip from your shoulder. You are unlikely to sway anyone's opinion by being combative and insulting the work your fellow editors have done here. Perhaps you are just trolling, and I have fallen for it. If so, shame on me. Secondly, assuming you are serious, think of some constructive ways to propose change, do so in small doses (in separate Senate Hall or Consensus Track threads, for instance), and propose away. Finally, in the case of individual inaccuracies and assumptions, and "well, duh" stuff like you seem to think the Palpatine/Palatine thing is, bring the issue up on the appropriate talk page. Talk:Palpatine for instance. The consensus I see in the comments above is that there are likely to be borderline cases that may be obvious enough to not run afoul to our rules against original research. Such cases should be hammered out on a case-by-case basis, generally on individual article talk pages. ~Savage 14:38, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I am not trying to sway anyone's opinion, nor am I "trolling" (whatever that is). I am merely stating my own opinion. Being combative is part of that, because that is an option, an alternative to being diplomatic, no? Nor am I insulting the work of anyone in particular—I am proposing that none of us make edits without exhaustively studying the source material from a detached viewpoint, and saying that, currently, many do. As for Palatine Hill and the other Palpatine etymologies, they have been sitting comfortably and unchallenged in their warm and cozy corner of the behind the scenes section, helping the many who come to Wookieepedia looking for such things I am sure, for years now. If the Cosinga issue persists, perhaps it will be taken to the talk page. But I do propose that more etymologies are introduced, it's why I made this page in the first place. Do I have the courage to take my proposal to the Commissariat? To paraphrase Han: "I don't have time to discuss this in a committee." And to paraphrase Matt Stover: "Can't we just talk this over a couple of beers?" But maybe I will, because I do want to see etymologies for every single Darth name. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:02, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Putting etymologies in the Behind the scenes sections of every single Darth name would be speculation and original research. Saying "I, the editor of this article, believe based on little to no evidence that this character's name could be connected to something completely unrelated" has no place on this wiki. If you can't see the difference between comparing a sentient ocean to a similarly-named sentient ocean and comparing Palpatine to a completely unrelated hill in ancient Rome, then "Behind the scenes" sections may not be the best things for you to edit. Feel free to start a Consensus Track to challenge the rules, but in the meantime, they will continue to be enforced. And if said Consensus Track doesn't go your way, do try to be a better sport about it than you've been in this thread. Some of your comments have come awfully close to being personal attacks on the entire Wookieepedia community. Knock it off. Menkooroo 19:16, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- "Personal" attacks against a "community" is an oxymoron. In any case, I am not attacking anyone -- just saying that, from my POV, the general climate here is not conductive to growth, but to malformation. That's just my opinion. Encountering one stupid rule after another wherever I go only reinforces my opinion, but it still remains nothing but my opinion. But to the point: I never proposed anything like "saying "I, the editor of this article, believe based on little to no evidence that this character's name could be connected to something completely unrelated." I proposed something, like, for example, mentioning the meaning of the word "carnage" in Darth Karnage's page, or the meaning of the word "gravid" in Darth Gravid's page, without implying that any author intended such a connection to be made. That requires no policy change. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 19:46, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- First off, it is not an oxymoron. A personal attack against a community means you are attacking every member of the community personally. If you do not wish to do so, try using words other than "stupid," "sloppy," "irresponsible," and the like. Secondly, look at the article count. There are over ninety thousand articles on this site, and you seriously expect us to make every single one perfect and complete? And you obviously have not done much searching on other wikis if you think we are sloppy, unscholarly, and irresponsible. We are one of the largest, most comprehensive wikis on the Web, so show a little respect instead of barging in thinking you know everything (which you obviously don't since you don't even know what trolling is, nor do you understand the technobabble). Thank you. MasterFred
(Whatever) 20:11, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I do not wish to pursue this matter further. I would only like to say that is impossible to insult a "community," because a "community" is a number of individuals counted, misleadingly, as one entity. To say, for example, that "Wookieepedians stink," is meaningless (not to mention puerile), because of the sheer number of Wookieepedians. One cannot expect that statement to be taken seriously, because one individual cannot express a valid opinion on thousands of other individuals. One can express one's opinion on a general trend, but not on thousands of individuals whose behaviors one cannot hope to study on a case-by-case basis in order to arrive at a valid conclusion. For the same reasons, it should not be expected of anyone to show respect towards a "community"; it can only be directed at individuals. In any case, I do not expect my personal opinion on the general trend here to be taken seriously; it's just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less, and I don't expect anything in particular by expressing it. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 20:34, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- If you are going to call the editors of this wiki "clueless bastards" having "autistic debates," I'm afraid you will have to adjust your attitude if you want to remain a part of this community. I don't really care whether you think those kind of statements cannot be taken seriously, because I am going to take them as any other insult towards editors. Thank you. 1358 (Talk) 21:31, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Well then you will be misinterpreting my statements. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 21:40, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- R5, you might also try to get involved in reviewing articles at WP:CAN, WP:GAN, or WP:FAN. If you feel there are problems with the quality of our articles, those are avenues where you might voice such opinions. Just note that any objections you have should be based on our rules, even if you don't like them. If you disagree with any particular rule, you should challenge it through the consensus track forum. You are also welcome to edit articles yourself to bring them up to standards you consider to be better or higher. Finally, again, I think you sound like an intelligent person who potentially has a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia. People here are likely to feel rubbed the wrong way if you use incendiary language such as that used in this thread, though. Take this as personal advice, nothing more. Good luck, and hope to see you around! ~Savage 23:33, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I heed the advice, and offer my own to everyone: Don't take things personally. Criticizing the way a website is run and being patently undiplomatic does not equate calling people names. I had no intention of insulting anyone in particular, and indeed I never directed any attack at anyone in particular. Cheers. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 10:34, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- That's good to know. Maybe next time, though, read your comments from everyone else's POV before you save them. Try not to sound so condescending. It'll make things go much smoother. We here ARE willing to change and are always looking for ways to improve the site. :) MasterFred(Whatever) 18:01, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- That's good to know. Maybe next time, though, read your comments from everyone else's POV before you save them. Try not to sound so condescending. It'll make things go much smoother. We here ARE willing to change and are always looking for ways to improve the site. :) MasterFred
- Thanks. I heed the advice, and offer my own to everyone: Don't take things personally. Criticizing the way a website is run and being patently undiplomatic does not equate calling people names. I had no intention of insulting anyone in particular, and indeed I never directed any attack at anyone in particular. Cheers. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 10:34, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
- R5, you might also try to get involved in reviewing articles at WP:CAN, WP:GAN, or WP:FAN. If you feel there are problems with the quality of our articles, those are avenues where you might voice such opinions. Just note that any objections you have should be based on our rules, even if you don't like them. If you disagree with any particular rule, you should challenge it through the consensus track forum. You are also welcome to edit articles yourself to bring them up to standards you consider to be better or higher. Finally, again, I think you sound like an intelligent person who potentially has a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia. People here are likely to feel rubbed the wrong way if you use incendiary language such as that used in this thread, though. Take this as personal advice, nothing more. Good luck, and hope to see you around! ~Savage
- Well then you will be misinterpreting my statements. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 21:40, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- If you are going to call the editors of this wiki "clueless bastards" having "autistic debates," I'm afraid you will have to adjust your attitude if you want to remain a part of this community. I don't really care whether you think those kind of statements cannot be taken seriously, because I am going to take them as any other insult towards editors. Thank you. 1358 (Talk) 21:31, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I do not wish to pursue this matter further. I would only like to say that is impossible to insult a "community," because a "community" is a number of individuals counted, misleadingly, as one entity. To say, for example, that "Wookieepedians stink," is meaningless (not to mention puerile), because of the sheer number of Wookieepedians. One cannot expect that statement to be taken seriously, because one individual cannot express a valid opinion on thousands of other individuals. One can express one's opinion on a general trend, but not on thousands of individuals whose behaviors one cannot hope to study on a case-by-case basis in order to arrive at a valid conclusion. For the same reasons, it should not be expected of anyone to show respect towards a "community"; it can only be directed at individuals. In any case, I do not expect my personal opinion on the general trend here to be taken seriously; it's just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less, and I don't expect anything in particular by expressing it. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 20:34, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- First off, it is not an oxymoron. A personal attack against a community means you are attacking every member of the community personally. If you do not wish to do so, try using words other than "stupid," "sloppy," "irresponsible," and the like. Secondly, look at the article count. There are over ninety thousand articles on this site, and you seriously expect us to make every single one perfect and complete? And you obviously have not done much searching on other wikis if you think we are sloppy, unscholarly, and irresponsible. We are one of the largest, most comprehensive wikis on the Web, so show a little respect instead of barging in thinking you know everything (which you obviously don't since you don't even know what trolling is, nor do you understand the technobabble). Thank you. MasterFred
- "Personal" attacks against a "community" is an oxymoron. In any case, I am not attacking anyone -- just saying that, from my POV, the general climate here is not conductive to growth, but to malformation. That's just my opinion. Encountering one stupid rule after another wherever I go only reinforces my opinion, but it still remains nothing but my opinion. But to the point: I never proposed anything like "saying "I, the editor of this article, believe based on little to no evidence that this character's name could be connected to something completely unrelated." I proposed something, like, for example, mentioning the meaning of the word "carnage" in Darth Karnage's page, or the meaning of the word "gravid" in Darth Gravid's page, without implying that any author intended such a connection to be made. That requires no policy change. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 19:46, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Putting etymologies in the Behind the scenes sections of every single Darth name would be speculation and original research. Saying "I, the editor of this article, believe based on little to no evidence that this character's name could be connected to something completely unrelated" has no place on this wiki. If you can't see the difference between comparing a sentient ocean to a similarly-named sentient ocean and comparing Palpatine to a completely unrelated hill in ancient Rome, then "Behind the scenes" sections may not be the best things for you to edit. Feel free to start a Consensus Track to challenge the rules, but in the meantime, they will continue to be enforced. And if said Consensus Track doesn't go your way, do try to be a better sport about it than you've been in this thread. Some of your comments have come awfully close to being personal attacks on the entire Wookieepedia community. Knock it off. Menkooroo 19:16, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I am not trying to sway anyone's opinion, nor am I "trolling" (whatever that is). I am merely stating my own opinion. Being combative is part of that, because that is an option, an alternative to being diplomatic, no? Nor am I insulting the work of anyone in particular—I am proposing that none of us make edits without exhaustively studying the source material from a detached viewpoint, and saying that, currently, many do. As for Palatine Hill and the other Palpatine etymologies, they have been sitting comfortably and unchallenged in their warm and cozy corner of the behind the scenes section, helping the many who come to Wookieepedia looking for such things I am sure, for years now. If the Cosinga issue persists, perhaps it will be taken to the talk page. But I do propose that more etymologies are introduced, it's why I made this page in the first place. Do I have the courage to take my proposal to the Commissariat? To paraphrase Han: "I don't have time to discuss this in a committee." And to paraphrase Matt Stover: "Can't we just talk this over a couple of beers?" But maybe I will, because I do want to see etymologies for every single Darth name. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 15:02, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- When I use the term "serious scholarship," I'm talking about forming original opinions and original arguments, and then supporting those arguments with evidence. Encyclopedias like this one are about regurgitated evidence only. (I mean, try submitting something with no argument as a term paper in a graduate seminar and see what happens.) We do "scholarship" in a sense, in that we aspire to high standards of accuracy. But my understanding of your position is that you are advocating for more leeway to do the original research, which is a no-no here. I thus have a few suggestions for you if you wish to effect change here. First, take the chip from your shoulder. You are unlikely to sway anyone's opinion by being combative and insulting the work your fellow editors have done here. Perhaps you are just trolling, and I have fallen for it. If so, shame on me. Secondly, assuming you are serious, think of some constructive ways to propose change, do so in small doses (in separate Senate Hall or Consensus Track threads, for instance), and propose away. Finally, in the case of individual inaccuracies and assumptions, and "well, duh" stuff like you seem to think the Palpatine/Palatine thing is, bring the issue up on the appropriate talk page. Talk:Palpatine for instance. The consensus I see in the comments above is that there are likely to be borderline cases that may be obvious enough to not run afoul to our rules against original research. Such cases should be hammered out on a case-by-case basis, generally on individual article talk pages. ~Savage
- This is not a place designed for serious scholarship, you say? Then why call it an encyclopedia? Why not "Wookiee-Star-Wars-related-information-dumbing-site-ea?" Why the rule on citations, why all the fuss, if the information here is not held to a high scholarly standard? I do agree with you that regurgitated information is the raison d'être of Wookieepedia, but this has to be done properly. And in thousands of articles, it is not, leaving out important—usually "unpopular"—information, including inaccuracies and assumptions, many instances of bad prose, etc. I must also repeat what I wrote about above: Saying that "Palatine Hill is an important historical site in Rome" and that "Cosingas was a Thracian general" in the behind the scenes sections is not the same as saying, "It was a dark and stormy night of dreary November in the year 1973 when George Lucas, a young and idealistic filmmaker, first scribbled the words, Palpatine = possible name for bad guy, see: Palatine Hill on a legal pad." The second case is understandably unacceptable, the first helpful and informative, because a Star Wars encyclopedia is a place for possible etymologies, just like any encyclopedia. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:19, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- While I have my doubts that adding a reference to Palatine Hill constitutes "serious scholarship," we have a policy against original research that arguably forbids such speculative connections. The reasoning is that Wookieepedia is not the correct venue for original arguments or novel propositions. We are designed to regurgitate information that others have produced. It's in our DNA and sense of purpose. If you want a place to propose a theory that the Neimoidians symbolize Erwin Rommel or that the Rancor is a metaphor for neoliberalism, you need to find a different website to do so. As for trivial connections like the Palpatine/Palatine Hill link you've proposed, it's borderline between being original research (à la the Rancor thing I just made up) and perhaps acceptable. So call for a discussion on the Palpatine talk page and hash it out with folks. You seem like an intelligent fellow, and I'd like to see you stick around, but I just want to make sure you understand that this place isn't designed for "serious scholarship." If you think we should move in that direction, the correct course of action would be to challenge the no original research aspect of our bureaucracy/rules. ~Savage
- My problem with the website is very simple: It's full of inaccurate information, sloppy scholarship, and a fixation on form over content. I wouldn't be here if there was any other place with such a wealth of SW information. I come looking for something, and I see mistakes and inaccuracies that result from cursory and irresponsible (for an encyclopedian) reading. But the infoboxes always look nice and shiny! Pointless autistic debates about technobabble related—I suspect—to the site's appearance stretch on and on. And yet when I make an edit with the desire to bring some serious scholarship to an article, I'm being rude because I challenged X rule. When I add a link behind the scenes enriching the article, it's "fanon." Meanwhile, the Jedi Kalatosh Zavros is listed as a Sith. But no, Palatine Hill is the real problem! Fie, fie, that a link to Palatine Hill would exist in the behind the scenes section of the Palpatine article, I tell you brethren, it will bring disease into our nerdy house! All the rules and regulations are clogging the place and inviting an autistic attitude, that's why I'm on a "campaign against bureaucracy." --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 10:46, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
