Forum:SH Archive/Notability policy draft

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Notability policy draft
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) 20:34, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

In-universe subjects

The following guidelines will help determine whether an in-universe subject (character, location, device etc.) requires a separate article on Wookieepedia:

  1. Any subject that was given a unique name, nickname, alias or callsign in canon should be given a separate article, regardless of its relevance or importance within the given source.
    • This is the criteria most obviously helpful to the readers, since most users of Wookieepedia would search for articles based on canonical name.
  2. Any subject that was given a notable role in the narrative should be given a separate article under a conjectural title.
    • The rationale for this criteria is that the subject that played a role in the narrative was conciously created for the story by the author, just went unnamed, and non-trivial information about it can be given to the readers. For example: Connor Freeman's father, Palpatine family starship, Unidentified Gibbela species.
  3. Any subject that appears in more than one source (excluduing reprints and re-releases of previous works) and can be clearly identified as being the same with little to no room for ambiguity, should be given a separate article.
    • If two or more separate works feature the same unnamed character, creature, vehicle design etc., it means an author deliberately decided to reuse a pre-existing element of canon. In this case, even if both appearances remain extremely minor, an article on such subject would provide valuable information to the reader.
  4. If a subject is only given a passing mention in the narrative, with no context or description, it should not be given a separate article.
    • For example, if a character in a novel has a conversation with an unidentified Devaronian patron in a cantina, the Devaronian can have a separate article. If, however, it is mentioned that "over a dozen species were present in the cantina, among them a Zabrak, an Ortolan and a Devaronian", then the Devaronian should not have a separate article, as it would be extremely uninformative.
  5. If a subject only appears in a single illustration in a visual source, with no context or other information provided, it should not be given a separate article.
    • Sources such as roleplaying sourcebooks and card games often feature illustrations which are not meant to represent any character in particular, but rather members of specific species, organizations or game classes. Unless a caption tells us more, little specific information can be gained from a single picture: the allegiances, circumstances and even time periods of the events and characters depicted can only be gained from assumptions and speculations. Additionally, an article is of no use to the reader if it simply describes what is depicted on the illustration and nothing more.
  6. If a subject only appears in a visual source in a single crowd shot or in the background and plays no role in the narrative, then it should not be given a separate article.
    • Comic book artists, video game designers and animators of TV series use background characters to establish required setting and atmosphere for various locations. However, most of the time these characters are not mentioned in the script and play absolutely no role in the story. Such characters are also almost never revisited in later sources and depending on design may even be indistiquishable from other characters of the same species. Having separate pages for every background character in every visual source ever published would clog the Wookieepedia with thousands of minor articles that would give no information to the reader.
      • A notable departure from this rule concerns the live-action movie characters, which should always be given a separate article as long as they can be distinquished from others (such as identical-looking clone or stormtroopers). Movie crowd scenes with multiple background extras such as Chalmun's Spaceport Cantina or Jabba's Palace have been the subject of scrutiny by both fans and licenced authors for years, with many minor characters receiving names and biographical details decades after their first appearance. A crowd scene in a single comic panel will never generate the same level of interest, however, and the individuals depicted are unlikely to ever be revisited, so all information on them would come from a single picture, making a full article redundant.
  7. The article must pass the "duck test". If it looks like a bantha, sounds like a bantha, smells like a bantha, moves like a bantha and acts like a bantha, then it is a bantha and not an Unidentified bantha-looking creature.
    • When dealing with visual sources, be aware of the concept of artistic license: hundreds of illustrators worked on Star Wars at different times and no two of them share the same vision, style and technique. So if a creature, a species or a starship has only minor differences from a pre-established subject or there is otherwise room for ambiguity, it is safe to assume the deviations from an established canonical design to be artistic license and not a totally separate but unnamed animal, race or vehicle.

English words

If a word holds the same meaning in Star Wars galaxy as in general English language, generally there is no need for a separate article. Notable exceptions that would allow for their own articles include:

  1. If a word is used to define something different in Star Wars galaxy than in real world. Bounty Hunter is not the same as Bounty Hunter, Cantina is not the same as Cantina, Spice is not the same as Spice.
    • A good rule of thumb is whether the word gains a different, easily recognizable meaning when used within the Star Wars context. Military ranks (captain, general, sergeant), technology (computer, hologram, jetpack) and astronomic terms (asteroid, planet, galaxy) are all obviously qualifying examples. On the other hand, words such as wheel, torch or lubricant have exactly the same meaning when used in context of Star Wars or outside of it. Such terms require no separate articles, as they would be telling nothing new to a reader.
  2. If a word has clear Earth origins or otherwise defines a term one would not associate with Star Wars, but is nevertheless canonical. Books, Paper and Glasses are rarely depicted in Star Wars media and are generally not expected to be found in them, yet are canonical.
    • A rule of thumb is whether an article on an otherwise generic Earthly term would provide new information to the reader. The article of paper may provide interesting and unusual examples because of its rarity in Star Wars. More generic items like bunk, bulkhead or barrel, however, are commonly found in both visual and non-visual Star Wars media and rarely draw special attention to themselves. An article on item such as bag would be telling only what a bag is, something a reader of text in English already knows.
  3. While a full article on a generic English word will not be appropriate, a page under its title might still exist, functioning as a disambiguation page between similarly named Star Wars concepts. See fish, stone and bridge for a proper way to use commong English words in the main namespace.
    • When a word refers to a specific unique subject within Star Wars, the canonical page title should have precedence over the disambiguation page in namespace. See Lock, Switch and Abyss for examples.

Discussion

I would like to hear the community's answer to three questions:

  1. Do you think this wiki needs a notablity policy at all? Or should it instead have articles on everything, and I mean everything? In which case Unidentified stormtrooper (third left, second row) (Emperor's arrival on Death Star II), Unidentified Tatooine rock R2-D2 hid behind in 0 BBY and Unidentified lightsaber (Unidentified Jedi) (Unidentified planet)
  2. What do you think of IU notablity rules? Any comments, changes, additions, objections?
  3. What do you think of English notablity rules? Any comments, changes, additions, objections?

This wiki is still absolutely the most detailed and professional wiki out there, but in my opinion the presense of multiple junk articles presenting zero useful information hurts it a lot. If even some of those rules were adopted, a great clean-up of mess could begin. I won't even object to taking only one of two sections to the voting commitee if it helps slide past some controversial rules. LOST-Malachi (talk) 12:15, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

  • I for one am all for a notability policy and made an attempt at gathering ideas a while back. I'd support most of the rules in your draft but would perhaps need to think more about rules five and six, given that both would lead to the deletion of status articles. The fact that some one has been willing to take the time to write up and nominate such articles suggests to me they're seen as important enough to keep. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:13, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • It would and that was the intention. An article like Unidentified Sullustan (shirt) may pass internal quality requirements, but it's still useless as hell to the readers. All it does is saying "Look, here's a picture and let's describe what is depicted on the picture in text for double redundancy!". Imagine if this has been prose and not visual source: "This dude wore a shirt at one point in his life." That's not information, it tells nothing to anyone who can just look at the picture instead. Jean-Luc Picard was once a status article too and took time to get it there, but it was deleted for a good reason also. LOST-Malachi (talk) 04:01, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
      • The problem with getting rid of "useless" articles is that everyone has a different idea about what is useless. What some people find pointless, others may enjoy reading. Supreme Emperor (talk) 04:11, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
      • If you would like to talk about "useless" articles, the TOR vendor articles could be called useless, as the only thing unique about the character is their name, and the articles only tell information that can be seen by looking at the character. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 04:16, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
        I see what you're getting it, that's why I asked for opinions. I still fail to see as to why a self-evident article would be an interesting read to anyone, when there's barely enough context for a short caption under the picture. If you could please enlighten me, I'd like to know that reason. Also, named characters have been consistently okay for not just this, but any online encyclopedia, because a fan encountering that name might google it, or search it on a wiki directly. Nobody would just go and type Unidentified Sullustan (shirt) in search box though, ever. That article is also orphaned, not linked through any main namespace page. A reader-not-editor of Wookieepedia has very little chance to find it and even smaller chance to find it useful. Oh, and it (like most other such articles with no written info) contains speculation because SWGTCG was never confined to Rebellion era in the first place (Trust me, that I know).
        There are also things like Koros dove. Just look at it: full of speculation (calling a white triangle both a dove and a bird based on... what?) based on the super-tiny background fragment of one single comic panel. Even if there is one day an Essential Guide to Avian species of Koros Major naming 150+ different avians of the planet with a full-body picture next to text, it'll be impossible to identify this minuscule picture with any of them - there just isn't enough detail, the artists didn't even bother to draw it properly. It may already be the same as Unidentified avian species or Kirrek dove - there's just no way to know. The image tells next to nothing, there are no written sources and it's so minor, it's unlikely it'll ever be revisited, not that anyone in LFL would take a note of thing like that in a first place. "There were some birds living on the planet" isn't informative at all to reader of that particular article. Mention that fact on Koros Major, but don't make a separate page that is 100% redundant. LOST-Malachi (talk) 04:55, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
      • I like your policy, I find it is very well written. I'm wondering though, do you find there are a lot of "junk" articles in Wookieepedia, such as "a rock R2-D2 hid behind?" I looked at the Unidentified Sullustan (shirt) you used as an example. The thing with that article is that the card itself is called "Lucky Shirt." So the article is not about a random picture of some guy wearing a shirt, but an actual shirt that is (supposedly) special. Are there any other examples of "junk" articles you can point to? Also, as for your "English words" section, I was a little confused by the example of Bounty Hunter, since they seem to be similar. To Ayrehead02: Which articles would rules five and six affect and lead to the deletion of status articles?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 04:23, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
        Examples of junk articles: Arkanian baton (definitely a Stun baton, but because it is used by one Arkanian on Arkania once, must be totally different thing!), Mounted beasts (contains speculation, groups together several different things, is based solely on a single background appearance), Aehrrley Rue's species (it could be anything inside that armor, Bane Malar is the same case and a kriffing FA, but doesn't bother with Bane Malar's species nonsense). Unidentified lucky shirt wouldn't be much better, it's just a unique name of a card for gameplay purposes and not necessarily unique item. There is a card called "Han Solo's blaster", which is far more prominently featured, yet even then the Wook doesn't have Han Solo's Modified Blastech DL-44 per se. Real world bounty hunters operate strictly under US law in certain states, while in Star Wars a bounty can be put on anyone by anybody: governments, crime lords and random individuals can post bounties on whoever they want as long as they got money.
        Rule 5 is deliberately worded against articles like that Sullustan in a shirt and Unidentified scout trooper (Gran Jedi). Remember, it's an RPG illustration for visual reference purposes: it may depict player-created characters or an event that did not occur in a canonical outcome of a scenario (think Dark Side option in KOTOR). We know nothing about the individuals, the circumstances of the event, even the era is pretty much guesswork. It's not an encyclopedic article, it's overblown caption for one illustration. Rule 6 is aimed for things like Unidentified Gotal patron (Twirling Twi'lek) and his friend. Seriously, an article for every background off-focus extra in a crowd shot of every published comic ever? That's thousands upon thousands of articles, all absolutely uninformative and useless to readers, because unlike Chalmun's Spaceport Cantina those extras aren't interesting to anyone and won't be revisited in years to come. LOST-Malachi (talk) 08:53, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and look at what beauty I just found: Unidentified imperial trooper (battle of the valiant). An article on a generic, random, nameless, faceless video game NPC with no distonguishable features whatsoever. Canonical? Hell yes! Notable? Let me just say that even Cade's super-thorough awesome project does not include this guy. There's nothing really to say about him or tens of thousands (literally) NPCs that we slay while playing video games. And yet there is nothing in the current rules preventing that article from existing, either. I'm just trying to understand if people really want hundreds and thousands of stormtroopers from Dark Forces, Force Unleashed, Battlefront etc. to have individual articles or to have at least some sort of rules to weed that stuff out. LOST-Malachi (talk) 11:04, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

  • I really like what you've done here, Mauser. Sentences like "Additionally, an article is of no use to the reader if it simply describes what is depicted on the illustration and nothing more." are especially true --- there are dozens of these articles that seem to have been created just so that users could write more Comprehensive articles. Unidentified Herglic (chop shop), Unidentified Codru-Ji Jedi, and even my own Unidentified H'nemthe patron, I'm looking at you. I also like that you've explicitly distinguished between background film characters and background comic/video game characters. I would fully support this policy. I just have one question, though: Some alien species that don't appear very often in canon should necessarily mention their various nameless background characters in order to be FA'd or GA'd (for example, Lamproid mentions Unidentified Lamproid (Tyro Viveca's trophy); H'nemthe mentions Unidentified H'nemthe patron). If their species article mentions them in order to be comprehensive, do you think they should get an article? Menkooroo (talk) 11:42, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • I see no problem here at all. The main article can still list the random tiny bits of information about individuals in general without a need to link for a minor useless article based on background appearance. Take Sanyassan for example. It links to Unidentified Sanyassan prison warden (definitely notable) and Unidentified bald Sanyassan assailant (ewww, not really notable). However, it contains no links whatsoever to Unidentified eyepatched Sanyassan (live action + distinct appearance = notable) or Unidentified Sanyassan (lineup) (REALLY? a sourcebook lineup illustration made to demonstrates height difference between species is being treated as an IU event?) and manages to do completely fine. Also, I am pretty sure that Swokes Swokes article that links to minor useless articles like Unidentified Swokes Swokes bartender and Unidentified Swokes Swokes victim does NOT link to every single minor extra from Scourge (novel), which contains a lot of nameless Swokes Swokes in its early chapters. Doesn't hurt it one bit though. LOST-Malachi (talk) 12:40, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
      • In my defence, I created the articles on the bald Sanyassan assailant and his friend because I was specifically asked to for the FAN of the Sanyassan article. It seems that at least one person, in this instance SavageBob, thought there was indeed "enough information to distinguish them as unique individuals." In the end of the day, it all comes down to what you mean by "enough information." In the case of the two assailants, these guys are actually doing something of interest, that is attacking a Star Tours speeder—which also has the merit o showing there were still Sanyassan on Endor at that point. However, I wholeheartedly agree with you, Mauser, when it comes down to articles like the Unidentified Sanyassan (lineup)|lineup Sanyassan.--LelalMekha (talk) 13:10, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
        • That's right. I'd support the vast majority of this proposed policy, but not the bits that would kill these kinds of articles. These are unique individuals in the Star Wars galaxy, so I have no problem with them being here. But maybe that's why it might be a good idea to vote on this policy line by line, rather than whole hog. ~SavageBOB sig 14:06, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
        • That the Sanyassans attacked the Star Tours speeder is a good point, but I don't know if it makes either of them notable characters, per se. The information about the Sanyassans still being on Endor and attacking the speeder is definitely important information, but I feel like it might have a better home in the Sanyassan article. Anyway, you're right that there's a stronger case for them than there is for, say, Unidentified Kel Dor Sith Lord. The Sanyassans actually tell us something important about a particular time period, but the Kel Dor tells us nothing beyond what's in the picture. I'd definitely support a policy that killed the Kel Dor Sith Lord and all of the lineup aliens. Menkooroo (talk) 14:52, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
          • On those Sanyassans: I thought the information on them has come from a caption, but I just checked the source and the image doesn't have caption whatsoever. Which makes practically everything in the article OR/speculation: What makes you think it's New Republic era? What makes you think it's Endor? Could be any other world in the Modell sector or even the galaxy. What makes you think the StarSpeeder 3000 belonged to Star Tours? WThat very article has an example of them being operated by someone else. Finally, what makes you think they were attacking it? One of them holds what appears to be a blaster (though we don't even see that, the other reveals what might be bombs strapped to his chest. Call me nit-picky, but it doesn't pass my duck test, I am definitely now sure of what I am seeing. These are arguments not for FAN/GAN/CAN, but for TC altogether - and this is part of the reason I dislike such articles so much. If it had at least a caption that would provide some additional info it could pass Rule 5 of my list, but as it is, it just does not. LOST-Malachi (talk) 15:19, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
            • Looks like Lelal's interpretation of that scene has been definitively canonized. Most likely another case of the Wook influencing canon, but who can say for sure? Menkooroo (talk) 23:46, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
      • That "battle of the valiant" article is the work of an anon who is notorious for making those kind of lazy articles, and I'd agree that there is no need for them. Same goes for many of the species articles created by Dantescifi. But in general, this policy is too hard on perfectly acceptable unidentified articles that often have more information than articles on named characters. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 14:11, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
        If there is some information in the article other than that from the picture itself, I believe it may get a pass. A caption explaining what's going on, background info on the subject if it exists elsewhere, creator comments or character lines if any - that's all good and informative. But an article based on a single context-free illustration is self-evident and redundant. If you want to take rules 5 and 6 out, nothing will remain to make the policy work, things will simply continue at is.
        Speaking of which, I always knew that there won't be consensus on unidentified stuff, but what about the Earth items? Forks, spoons, rope - do you want things like that gone (turned into disambigs) or let them stay? LOST-Malachi (talk) 15:19, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
        • I've fought this battle before. Problem is that people will say it needs to be kept if it's different from Real-world items and when you point out that it's not different, then they revert to the argument that the fact that the SW Universe uses something just like the real-world is notable. It's a hard battle. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 15:29, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
The articles that are being brought to light are very interesting. The Koros dove and Kirrek dove articles seem very weak. Is it ever mentioned that those birds are doves? If not, then the articles seem conjectural and probably should be deleted. The Arkanian baton really does seem like a Stun baton and should be merged into it. The Aehrrley Rue's species article seems pointless and probably should be deleted. I also have a problem with the Unidentified Sanyassan (lineup). It's described as an in-universe event, but there's no proof of that.
I am surprised that some of these articles made it to Comprehensive status. The Unidentified scout trooper (Gran Jedi) and Unidentified Codru-Ji Jedi and Unidentified Kel Dor Sith Lord are just illustrations in an RPG book, and there's no proof that these are actual events that occurred in the Star Wars universe. The Unidentified Gotal patron (Twirling Twi'lek) is unremarkable; I don't see the point of it. The Unidentified Ho'Din patron seems likewise unremarkable. The only difference is that there's less information on Ho'Din species, so some might be inclined to allow that article more leeway.
As for Unidentified Herglic (chop shop) and Unidentified H'nemthe patron, the only purpose to those articles seems to simply draw attention to a picture and to build an article around an image.
Should I start going around and edit each of these pages and/or their talk pages to voice our concerns?
One final question: Is there a real concern that small pointless articles are included in Wookieepedia?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:38, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
To assume that these are not real individuals and events would be OR. If we can't take an RPG illustration to depict an actual in-universe thing, what can we take as canonical? Whether they deserve an article is another subject, but whether they existed in the GFFA should be a non-issue. ~SavageBOB sig 10:41, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that if any user has a problem with these articles, they should take it to the articles themselves rather than try a site-wide policy to stamp out articles that they don't like. Many of the issues here can be solved by simply discussing a merge on the talk page. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 16:42, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • There have been multiple attempts over the years of cleaning up articles that were {almost} unanimously agreed to be useless that failed on the grounds of: "Let's establish a policy first and work from here" as well as attempts to define such policy that everybody would agree on. Needless to say, all failed. For a brief history of the debate, look here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Basically, everyone agrees that some written guidelines are needed to delete garbage like that unidentified trooper on sight, but no consensus has ever been reached on exact rules and wordings, allowing the flood on such nonsense to continue. The implementation of CA system which brought to status articles of so little importance, that users other than me acknowledge them as useless didn't help either. LOST-Malachi (talk) 18:41, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • I like this proposal. I like it a lot. Excellent work, Mauser. These are the notability guidelines this site has long needed, and I look forward to seeing them established as policy (so that I might finally proclaim, "About damn time!"). Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 17:01, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • What would be the reaction if we proposed the deletion of an seemingly pointless article that made it to Comprehensive status?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 18:38, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • Status articles have been deleted (not merged) before. Jean-Luc Picard is a personal pride of mine =) Just because it passes review once, doesn't mean we can't all step back and say "Hey, seriously, we keep and promote that?" LOST-Malachi (talk) 18:41, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
      • Come up with a list of status articles you think should be deleted, and then we can talk. Your policy is mostly good, but you're giving particular favoritism towards the movies, which doesn't seem very sound. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 19:04, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
        • Honestly I think the best thing to do might be to redraft without the more controversial rules. That way the rest of the rules, which so far have received no objections, can be swiftly voted on and made official, meaning a policy actually gets made this time instead of endless talk and no action. After the base rules are set the rules which we're arguing about can be separately proposed and debated, without dragging the rest of the guidelines down with them into the (most likely very lengthy) debate. It seems silly for us potentially delay the guidelines hugely over one or two minor parts of what is overall a largely excellent suggestion. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:17, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
          • As Elvis would say, a little less conversation, a little more action. Send the "In-universe subjects" section to the CT and I will vote for it. There's a lot about it that I like. However, keep the "English words" section seperate, because I disagree with that section.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 02:44, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Malachi, you talk about speculation on Koros dove but then you turn around and make up your own speculation on Arkanian baton. Fe Nite (talk) 22:41, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

So...We are gonna just nitpick ANYTHING possibly of little to no importance? like: Unidentified dude who's right behind you near the car at that whatsit place you went to but did not know who it was anyways? I respectfully object. I feel that it's gonna be to much like an index sourcing too much of the little info that no one will pry bother to look into.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 04:33, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

I think the first part of the proposal ("In-universe rules") is good: to some extent, they codify existing guidelines editors have followed before in TC discussions. I could imagine rules 2 and 6 actually being interpreted to keep some super-minor character articles (does posing for a painting at some point give a character enough canonical significance? What about being the only Dulok on Coruscant?) The "English words" section may need some work, so I'd agree it should be voted on separately. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:43, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Status articles that don't pass proposed guidelines

Oh, you are not gonna like this. You're not going to like this at all. And not just Cade, but many others too. Anyway, according to proposed guidelines (and my common sense), the following articles will have to go. No mass or speedy deletetions of course, they should be TC'd individually. LOST-Malachi (talk) 08:42, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

GA

  • Femi's co-worker - minor background character with no lines, actions or importance that doesn't really do anything. Femi herself was obviously created by the writer and was in the script from the beginning, but this guy is just the result of the artist filling the rest of the panel. Rule 6.
  • Unidentified Sith Saber (Ben Skywalker victim) and Unidentified Sith Saber (Luke Skywalker victim) - from what I get, these two only got a very brief passing mention: Luke killed one and Ben killed another. Literally no other information is available, the rest of article is derivered from the rest of FOTJ. So, Rule 4 (whoch nobody objected to so far).
  • Unidentified Wookiee worker 1 - this is a worker from an RTS game, people. If you have this, nothing's stopping me from creating Unidentified stormtrooper 27 (Battlefront II). It seems to pass by Rule 3, but Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds: Clone Campaigns features him in the same content as Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds and the Prima guide doesn't mention him specifically in any way either. Rule 6.
  • Unidentified jungle world - this as well as Unidentified planet (Sith Empire) and Unidentified rainy planet (Sith Empire) draw all information from a single panel each, which form a montage sequence. There's nothing to suggest they aren't among the planets we already know or even from different places on a single planet (planets are big). Also, because there is no real context on them (unlike other unidentified planets, where unqiue stuff happens), I just don't see how they could be specifically identified in the future.
  • Unidentified Biituian crop plant, Unidentified Biituian fruit tree, Unidentified Gibbela crop plant and Unidentified Gibbela fruit tree - articles for all minor unidentified single-panel characters aren't enough, let's have articles for all minor unidentified single-panel plants too. Not only does it make assumption that plants are native and not imported, but Unidentified Naboo trees, bushes and grasses species are more canonical, yet nobody was deadpan enough to make articles on those. That's your Unidentified Tatooine Rock in 0 BBY, people.
  • Unidentified long-necked riding beast - extremely minor background character whom you can't even see properly. Rule 6.
  • Unidentified species (Imperial torching) - noticed how the original proposal mentions canon several times? It was the intention that definitely non-canonical articles face ever harsher notability window to pass. If an artist in a non-canon books draws five new, distinct, detailed species in a crowd scene that will remain unused non-canon forever, do they all really require separate articles? In this particular case, the species is non-notable and non-canonical, has only very-minor appearance (Rule 6) and counts as artistic license to me (Rule 7a).

CA

  • Unidentified droid (chop shop), Unidentified Arkanian, Unidentified Bothan (drink), Unidentified Devaronian (coat), Unidentified Duros (chop shop) and way too many others to list - yeah, "great" idea there on making articles for every alien illustrated in The Awesome Atlas. No need to research, no checking sources, just descrbibe the picture and you get instant status article. Except there is also no biographical information, not even era, no chances of them ever receiving any recongnition and no links to them except from similar useless articles. Trevas was given a job to come up with illustration for the text adn then the editor made up captions that do little beyond identifing the species for a casual reader. These articles are self-evident, every one of them. (Trevas himself stays, but only because he keeps illustraring himself as an Easter Egg. Rule 3).
  • Unidentified Bith Jedi Scholar, Unidentified Cathar Jedi (Telekinesis), Unidentified Codru-Ji Jedi, Unidentified Duros Jedi artisan, Unidentified Gand Jedi amd many more - again, self-evident articles. It's like an Ouroboros eating its tail - the article has a picture to illustrate the text, the text describes exactly what's depicted on the picture and nothing else. Not to mention that as illustrations from RPG sourcebooks they may illustrate what player-created characters do, in other words be as canonical as female blue-skinned Twi'lek Jaden Korr or Dark-sided male Jedi Exile.
  • Unidentified Cerean Jedi archaeologist, Unidentified Chiss Dark Jedi, Unidentified Chiss Jedi (Force jump), Unidentified Dark Jedi (Cho sun), Unidentified Dark Jedi (Force drain) and several dozens more I won't bother linking here. While I was playing SWGTCG for over three years and still remain fascinated with quality of the images, not once did I get the impression that each picture was illustrating an individual character. Cards like this are non-unique and canonical scenarios often feature multiple copies of each, just like Miniatures game for example. Furthermore, there was strong implication that the events depicted were those your player-created character performed, the picture being just an example. Much like KOTOR screenshots of Revan/Exile wearing various armor/clothes and performing Dark Side actions can be used for illustrating armor/Dark Side powers, they should not be used to illustrate Revan's and Exile's article, same logic applies here. Frex Junara, Govak and Unidentified Rebel sergeant (Zarra) have additional context, but most cards don't. Finally, every single SWGTCG CA is wrong in one aspect: the game was never confined to 0,5 ABY or even Rebellion era. It had everything from Exar Kun in his prime and TOTJ events, to the Clone Wars (note LAATs and Lucrehulks in background), to characters already dead by 0 ABY, to Shadows of the Empire events, to post-Endor neutral smuggler Mara. Saying that the illustration with no content whatsoever can be dated by Rebellion era is assumption, people.
  • Unidentified Jedi hermit - raises my ire even more than above examples because of Unidentified snow planet|this. So, every time there is an illustration of a scene happening we're not sure where, there's going to be a new Unidentified planet article? Common sense isn't just on leave, it made a scandal, quit the job, yelled at his former boss, slammed the door and swore never to come near its former office again.
  • Unidentified bounty hunter (Imperial tip) - absolutely no information about individual itself. Apparently created only due to requirements to pipelink everything on FAN and GAN. Really, this article only has one main namespace link leading to it and if the reader follows it, he learns nothing new absolutely. Rule 4.
  • Unidentified Cerean hopper, Unidentified caged Iyra, Unidentified long-necked riding beast (Cerea), Unidentified H'nemthe patron, Unidentified Star's Nova Wookiee and others - for most of those I don't own the sources, but it looks quite likely that it's the same case as other illustration articles - either all content comes from the oic itself (Rule 5) or the subject only appears in background and really nas no additional information available. (Rule 6)
  • Unidentified dancer - it's a leg. We only ever see ONE leg and you make it an article?
  • Unidentified droid owner (Tresk Im'nel's translator droid) - An entity owned a droid. An Entity. No species, gender, era, affiliation, occupation or any other information at all. Tresk Im'nel's translator droid won't get any worse at without a link to it. Rule 4.
  • Unidentified Fosh Jedi - Duck test says that's Vergere. She's the only Fosh we know of and she is a Jedi, so it fits this picture. Rule 7.
  • Unidentified female Jedi Master (meditation) - extremely brief passing mention with no context. Rule 4.
  • Unidentified Gotal patron and Unidentified Gotal gambler - both pass Rule 2, but neither passes Rule 7. I see no reason to assume them different.
  • Unidentified Matukai - insufficient context for a separate article. Thame Cerulian loses nothing by linking to Matukai instead and nor does this wiki.
  • Unidentified Senator (aide) - look , Unidentified Senatorial aide is okay because he's mentioned directly and there is context for him. But on this Senator we know nothing literally, a full article is redundant.
  • Unidentified Sith Lord (Post–Sith Civil War) - Duck tests says it's either Our Mutual Friend or one of his minions. Either way, it refers to someone we already know and not a separate invidiual.
  • Ooroo's homeworld - Duck Test says redirect too Celegia. This is not the same as every Twi'lek being from Ryloth - the species is extremely isolationistic, cannot even leave their home without heavy protection, plus description of raging seas fits.
  • Unidentified butterfly-like creature - Duck test. If it looks like a butterfly, it's a Butterfly. Case closed.
  • Unidentified musical composition (LoBue Cantina) - a song plays as Han Solo enters a cantina. We know absolutely nothing about this song, yet devote to it a separate article, unlinked from any mainspace page and complete non-informative. Sigh. Facepalm.

Some if not most of those would be fought over even in TC, but I see them as the most egregious examples of allowing everything on the wiki. Most "unidentified" GAs and all FAs actually pass quite easily, because they really tell something non-obvious. But what I listed here (And yes, that's like 25% to 35% of all current CAs. You can start hating me now if you haven't already) is completely redundant and self-evident, 95% of the time with no outside links from real, normal articles. The truth some editors must face is that such articles are completely useless to actual readers. They can't even find them except from a Random CA Main Page link and if they do, reaction ranges from "lol, these [redacted] have articles on THIS?!" to "hmm, I can't see how an article like that can be remotely useful or informative" (speaking from personal expirience). Purging them will bring no harm and will also make overall content management somewhat easier. To User:Ayrehead02: The problem I face is that losing controversial rules (5 and 6) would defeat the whole purpose, as the only remaining rules would be on what IS allowed and are mostly followed already. Also, it appears some people fully support Section 1 but not 2, while others are of opposite opinion. I think I'll just leave the remainder of the week for discussion and put the sections as two separate CTs next week. Then we'll see if a majority can agree on anything. LOST-Malachi (talk) 08:42, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

  • Your saying such things are useless to readers, but before I started editing I made frequent use of the random page button and read many such articles. They weren't the most riveting read I'll agree but I still found them interesting, as someone who enjoys fictional settings expanded upon as fully as possible they appealed to me. They also really impressed me, the fact that so much work and effort had been put into such minor articles really showed the passion of the community here and was another large factor in making me want to join. The articles also acted as a gate way for me to start editing, as since they aren't the most important articles I felt confident enough to try writing some, knowing that they wouldn't be seen by every reader and so not having my amatuer work make the wiki look bad. I did feel like I was contributing though and gained experience in writing articles from the edits other users made to those articles and the messages they left me. I know I'm not the only user who's started this way and feel it would be a shame to perhaps effect future users who might do the same. As for my suggestion for a shortened redraft, I realise a lot of the rules are already followed but at least we'd then have them down in writing. Surely better that than risking no policy being made at all because the CT grinds on forever and ends up having no consensus. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:02, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • A lot of the unidentified individuals, you'll notice, come in association with status-level alien species articles. In other words, when FA'ing or GA'ing an alien species, it's become common practice to mention each and every member of the species ever depicted in canon and (in most cases) to give them an article. I've arguably become indoctrinated into this practice, and I'm not sure it's as bad as Mauser paints it, but I did want to say I'd perhaps be OK with a proviso that, rather than creating articles for some of the more minor of these random characters, we allow that an image of them be allowed on the wiki and the linked to from the main article. In other words, they wouldn't get an article that says, "A Sullustan once wore a red shirt," but they would be reachable via a click in the Sullustan article, say, that allows the reader to see that image. I used this method in the FA Ranat when discussig a rat-like background alien, as you'll see in the "Behind the scenes" section of that article. In short, I think that visual-depiction-only individuals are worth mentioning on the Wook, either as we do it now, as "unidentified rat guy," or as an image linked to from the relevant larger article. Even the Sullustan with his shirt adds a bit of canon that we need to acknowledge, and this may be a compromise step with these sorts of articles. ~SavageBOB sig 10:52, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
    • That is an excellent idea. Gallery of minor unnamed stuff = bad (consensus), List of minor unnamed stuff = bad (consensus), Separate article on minor unnamed stuff = liked by some, hated by others (no consensus). So what needs to be done is that the picture of minor unnamed stuff is mentioned and described in text of a big major artice, with the link leading to the picture itself instead of redundant article that merely describes the same picture. Add Template:Notorphan and we're set. Tell me, do FAN/GAN/CAN rules really allow or prohibit that sort of stuff or is it just established practice with no written rules to make a page for everything that's mentioned within the major article's body? I will reflect this in the final proposal. And if no other articles linked to this stuff, then it wasn't that important in the first place. LOST-Malachi (talk) 11:20, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I like that proviso too. Like I said before, I'll vote to support this policy and clean out a lot of the crap on this wiki. Menkooroo (talk) 14:29, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that the definition of "What is a Good Article" and "What is a Comprehensive Article" needs to be more clearly defined. Right now, all that is said is "A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content." And, "A Comprehensive article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach GA status due to its limited content." These definitions should be revised to discourage the nomination of pointless articles. Ayrehead02 mentioned that he likes reading these small articles, and he's probably not the only one. HOWEVER, there is a big difference between allowing the article to exist and actually NOMINATING it as a GA or CA, thus setting it up as a good example for writing articles. The one that slays me the most is Unidentified dancer, which is basically just a leg, and it actually made it to CA! What a joke. Articles like these should NOT be nominated.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 19:10, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should have any rule which means there are articles on the wiki that can't reach status. Status shows that an article has good spelling, grammar and formatting as well as all content. The "quality" of the subject of the article shouldn't effect if its status as a well written article. If someone is happy to put enough effort in to writing it up and nominating it the I don't see why it should be denied status. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:26, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
        • Completely agree with Ayrehead, an article shouldn't be denied status solely because it happens to be about something small. Supreme Emperor (talk) 00:23, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
          • So I can write an article about someone's leg that appears in the background of one frame of a random comic and send to status and everyone is okay with that?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 02:47, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, the article's a bit ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that it should be deleted. We're Wookieepedia. We pride ourselves on being slightly ridiculous. Most of these complaints that Mauser has should be taken to the TC or the talk page, if any of you guys are actually looking to delete them. Otherwise, this thread is simply turning into an argument between those who hate these kind of articles and those who don't. If there is actually going to be something taken to CT, then please do so. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:03, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
              • Sorry, I didn't mean to start a pointless argument. Let me rephrase: I wish the efforts that are being spent to send these Unidentified background people and things to status would be redirected to send more notable people and things to status.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 13:45, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
                • That's actually a really good point. To be honest, I don't think our wiki benefits in the slightest when Unidentified Kel Dor Sith Lord and Unidentified H'nemthe patron are brought to CA status. If this policy ends up limiting the CAN page to notable things and helping users redirect their efforts to, well, articles that matter, then it will be a good thing. Menkooroo (talk) 14:41, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
                  • I respectfully disagree -- I don't think we should ever use subjective opinions that certain articles are more "deserving" of attention as grounds that other articles should be deleted. This is a hobby for all of us, so I don't want to be told, "Stop working on that obscure article and work on this one instead!" It's just as possible taht these small articles can be just the pick-me-up needed to energize a user to do work on other, beefier subjects, which would make them a net benefit to the Wook. Notability can and should be required on other grounds, but I fully oppose any notion that it should be on the basis of what we think editors should or shouldn't be working on. ~SavageBOB sig 08:48, August 19, 2013 (UTC)