Forum:SH Archive/Notability policy

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Notability policy

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. Graestan(Talk) 00:03, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I think I have come up with a general set of notability rules that everyone can agree on. This is not a proposal to implement the below policy, but rather an attempt to have the wording fine-tuned to match the general consensus of our community. --Imperialles 11:15, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Wookieepedia:Notability of in-universe articles

This policy places certain restrictions on the creation of in-universe articles, based on the notability criteria.

General rule

  • Anything that has unique information could potentially warrant its own article. Certain restrictions apply, detailed below.
    • However, not all information necessarily needs its own article, instead fitting better within other articles relating to the subject. Use common sense, and keep the concept of encyclopedic quality in mind.

Nature of the information

  • The information has to be verifiable.
  • Speculation and original research are not acceptable forms of information.
  • Wookieepedia's other content policies and consensus decisions still apply.

Events

  • Events require a special set of rules, due to their nature.
  • Any event could potentially be construed as having unique information that does not fit into other articles, simply by going into extreme detail. This is called "play-by-play" and is not very encyclopedic.
  • Therefore, as a general rule of thumb, events that are part of an immediate larger chain of events should probably be contained within one article, rather than several.
    • Immediate in this context means occurring at roughly the same time and place.
    • An example would be duel articles, where duels that are part of a larger battle generally do not receive their own articles.

Exceptions

  • Exceptions to these rules can be made through a Trash compactor discussion. Articles that would not be kept according to this policy could have their existence justified by such a discussion; conversely, articles that are notable as defined by this policy might be subject to deletion.

Discussion

If you have any ideas on how to improve the wording of the policy, do speak up. Everything could be subject to change based on your feedback. --Imperialles 11:15, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

  • How do you define "unique information?" Such a concept can have varying definitions based on the person reading the policy. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 12:06, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • It's hard to pin down, and indeed it could lead to different interpretations of the policy. That is why I included the TC clause. --Imperialles 12:10, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't an article have to exist in order to warrant a TC? If so, everyone who feels justified in creating an article will still have to actually create it, if only to beg the discussion. So how's this different than what happens now? Dangerdan97 21:39, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
        • It isn't. Policy doesn't necessarily have to change anything, it just means we are codifying the community consensus. --Imperialles 21:43, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
          • Just pointing out, there's nothing in there to address the dreaded "does this lightsaber warrant an article?" discussion. I would hope any notability policy would decide that debate, as well as similar debates for other objects. (I'm assuming individuals and organizations always get their own article, no matter how small as long as it's complete.) —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 20:13, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
            • It was decided in a recent CT to trash compact each individual lightsaber article, although I don't know whether we'll be continuing the trend for other objects. If you go to the Trash compactor page, you'll find a list of all individual lightsabers currently being voted on. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 20:18, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
            • This basically cements the principle that anything that has unique information conceivably could have its own article, which is what I perceive as being the prevailing opinion among Wookieepedians. Exceptions are made on a case-by-case basis through TC discussions. --Imperialles 20:19, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
              • Could it hurt to throw general "object notability" guidelines on here with the general note that if you feel there's unique information, make the article and see if anyone TCs it? —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 20:28, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
                • What sort of guidelines did you have in mind? --Imperialles 20:29, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • That specific objects should generally not be given their own article unless:
    1. They are given a unique name (e.g., The Millennium Falcon, The Darksaber)
    2. They have a unique history that cannot be summarized in another article, such as that for the owner of the object, usually due to multiple owners over time (e.g., Anakin Solo's lightsaber, Ludo Kressh's pedicure set)
    3. They possess an independent will or pseudo-intelligence (e.g., Luke's X-Wing that talked to R2-D2 (I think I recall that), the Muur Talisman if it had not been named)
    4. There is no other article that exists or could be created in which the information on the object could be contained
    5. Unique information exists regarding an object that is not suitable for other articles (e.g., the Bts information regarding K'Kruhk's lightsaber could potentially qualify it)
    6. When in doubt: create the article and allow objections to be voiced in the form of a TC —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 21:03, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
    7. Item has it's own, titled page in a licensed OOU source book such as an Essential Guide or Visual Guide, or has a dedicated information section on an LFL page, such as the Databank or a Wizards article. Must be more than (Mentioned only). SinisterSamurai 22:46, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think some sort of IU notability policy is long overdue. I've been thinking of some possible rules for characters:
    1. Any character given a name gets an article. This would include nicknames, callsigns, partial names, and explicitly listed clone or droid serial numbers.
      Example names given in books like Ultimate Alien Anthology don't get articles unless they can be applied to a specific person.
    2. Characters appearing in the films who aren't given names, but can be uniquely identified, could get articles (especially since some Lucasfilm licensee will probably assign a name to them.)
    3. Most stormtroopers, battle droids, clone troopers, etc. in the movies can't be distinguished from one another. I'd only expect the ones which have been given names, or have significant behind the scenes or EU information associated with them, to pass notability standards.
    4. Characters without names in Expanded Universe media who take an active part in the plot should get articles, but "fourth NPC from the left in video game crowd scene" or "guy with blue hat in panel 2, page 4 of issue 11" shouldn't.
    5. Characters who are never named, never make appearances in person, but whose existence can be inferred usually should not get articles (for example, Revan probably had parents, but we have nothing to say about them.)
  • As this discussion indicates, Wookieepedia probably needs rules for locations too. I can't think of what they would be, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:33, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think most of them fall under the General rule in Imp's proposal of unique information. Grunny (talk) 23:02, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
      • Probably. It just seemed to me that some specific applications of the general rules might be useful to include in the policy page. Are we likely to see a policy proposal soon? —Silly Dan (talk) 13:41, June 8, 2010 (UTC)