Forum:TC:Ambidexterity

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Ambidexterity

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus, default to keep. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 17:20, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Ambidexterity (talk - history - links - logs)

I came across ambidexterity for the first time today and was tempted to delete it outright. The main arguments here are: there's absolutely no difference in the IU definition from the OOU definition of ambidexterity. Also: we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. And finally: if we have this, why not articles for being "left-handed" and "right-handed" (Answer: because that would be silly)? Can we not do away with useless defining terms—especially when they're terms that even the youngest of our readers probably already know?

Delete

  1. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:02, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
    We definitely don't need to define this.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 22:05, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
  2. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 22:05, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 22:18, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
    Clone Commander Lee Talk 22:20, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
    —MJ— Holocomm Monday, April 9, 2012, 22:27 UTC
    —Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 00:39, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Menkooroo 02:12, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Though I'd generally describe myself as an inclusionist, I have limits. Keeping articles like this around is a dumb waste of time, effort, and space IMO. The wook is not a dictionary, nor does it exist to pander to those too damned lazy to open up Wikipedia. Delete with extreme prejudice. — DigiFluid 04:24, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Per Jon and DigiFluid. JRT2010 08:35, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Sorry, this just doesn't seem to fit. Much more desirable would be to link it to Wikipedia on this matter. DigiFluid speaks for me. Stake black msg 18:15, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
    • FWIW, there shouldn't be links to Wikipedia in the main body of an article. If we don't have an article for something, it should be either a redlink or left blank.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 02:31, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
  8. The only info worth keeping from this is "multidexterity" which should be its own article as such a thing doesn't exist in the real world. Saying which species/people were ambidextrous can just go in their own articles. nayayen★talk 18:39, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  9. —Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 19:32, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  10. After reconsideration, per Jon below. Create an article on multidexterity, since that's unique to SW, but get rid of this, since there's nothing unique about the concept itself. If we keep this, than that implies we can have articles on left-handed and right-handed. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers Monday, April 16, 2012, 17:22 UTC
  11. 1358 (Talk) 12:03, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Per my bullet point below. DD97Which bear is best? 13:49, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
  2. This is one example of where I don't buy the "we're not a dictionary" argument. The point of judging this, or indeed any, article shouldn't be on its basic definition, but rather the merit of any uniquely encyclopedic IU information. As far as I can see, this article demonstrates several instances of unique Star Wars examples that are being cataloged for encyclopedic reference. Even though ambidexterity is not unique to Star Wars (as many real-world things are not), I believe a reader deserves to be able to research this topic in its comprehensive form on our wiki. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:16, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  3. I have to agree. JangFett (Talk) 01:24, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Tope has swayed me.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 02:38, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, Tope's right.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 03:52, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
    Per Tope. —MJ— War Room Sunday, April 15, 2012, 04:01 UTC
    Striking while I reconsider the issue. —MJ— War Room Sunday, April 15, 2012, 20:10 UTC
  6. Made some tweaks to the article when it was first made, fully expecting it to get deleted. But with Tope's argument in mind, I think it needs a bit more clean up rather than outright deletion. Bella'Mia 04:27, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Very much per Tope, if an article can have information that is unique to the SW universe, it deserves an article. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 04:42, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  8. I just read over the article, and I see no reason to delete it. It could use some work, yes, but it can be salvaged and is quite useful. You'd be surprised how often I look at character images and try to determine if they are right or left dominant or ambidextrous. Certainly, observation from images could be employed to determine hand dominance. Hell, a number of Zuckuss's images have me convinced that he's a lefty. Not that it matters for this argument, but still. Keep the article. Trak Nar Ramble on 08:40, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  9. Clone Commander Lee Talk 08:44, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  10. Must agree with Toprawa on this. Lamp774 Talk 20:23, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  11. Tope summed it up well. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 13:23, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
  12. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 20:58, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • In the interests of full disclosure, I would like to point out that Ambidexterity is an available feat in both the First and Revised Editions of the D20 Star Wars RPG. I'm going to add them as sources for however long this article continues to exist. DD97Which bear is best? 13:49, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • So, to make sure I'm understanding everyone here: even though there is nothing different about ambidexterity IU and OOU, the fact that there are certain specific instances of its usage IU is all that should be required to have the article? In other words, since there are specific examples of ambidexterity IU, it can be kept. Because there are also instances where people are sppecifically labeled as left- or right-handed, so if we're keeping this just because there's mention of it like that in-universe, then we'll need to have left- and right-handed articles, too, because they're in precisely the same boat. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:14, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't forget separate articles for thumb from limb, helmet from armour, wing (as a structural item), and every other completely unnecessary page just because the words have been mentioned IU. — DigiFluid 18:11, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd like to second Nayayen's sentiment above: this fits perfectly fine in personal character articles. There's no need to keep this article as a definition—and as Tope mentioned above (unlike the concept of "multidexterity"), there is absolutely nothing about ambidexterity that is unique in any way to Star Wars—so quite literally the only purpose this article serves is to list people who were ambidextrous. I'd be okay with categories of "left-handed," "right-handed," and "ambidextrous" people, but we have no need for a list of ambidextrous people. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:06, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a suggestion that should solve this problem nicely. Move "Ambidexterity" over "Multidexterity" and edit the article to suit. Everyone is happy. Trak Nar Ramble on 03:57, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
    • Could we just do an article on "handedness" or something? Pretty sure that was covered briefly in one of the Wizards rulebooks, too. jSarek 05:57, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I'd be down with either of those. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:11, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
        • I would be open to the idea of redirecting it to a single article on all forms of appendage dominance. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 13:23, April 20, 2012 (UTC)