Forum:TC:Anti-clone sentiment

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Anti-clone sentiment

This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep. —spookywillowwtalk 03:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Anti-clone sentiment (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

This feels like something best covered in a subsection of the cloning article; it's not a widespread thing with enough information or history to warrant its own article.

Redirect to cloning

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 22:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Will change vote if IU identification is provided or if the page is changed to be less misleading with its ID assertion present by appropriately changing it to conjectural. But, I think it's misleading to present the page in it's current form as it is: and, one might say that that's not quite a valid reason to vote on a TC, but I'll counter that the vast majority of {{Confirm}} tags have sat for well over a decade, so one can't count on it being sorted anytime soon unless the issue is pressed. Until/if such amendments are made to this page, it's different than the Anti-Jedi sentiment, Anti-droid sentiment, and Xenophobia that all have multiple IU sources ID-ing them with one or multiple name variants. I'd also be fine changing vote to keep even if this page is kept as conjectural simply because it would have enough content once fully fleshed out; but, IMO the page in its current state—which is what we're currently voting on—does more of a disservice to readers than benefit. (Snark perhaps, but believe me when I say if the Confirm tag isn't sorted during the TC duration, I'd bet good money on it sitting for years; these things almost never have people looking at them, so to me I'm voting on the possibility of it remaining like it is right now indefinitely which is ick.)—spookywillowwtalk 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Without an ID, I don't think this is notable CometSmudge (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Eh, this topic does serve plot purposes and is a pretty significant factor through various events. Rather than jumbling the topic with a bunch of stuff about the scientific process of cloning and instances of its use through galactic history, I think it's better with a dedicated page of its own. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 22:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Per OOM. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. If anti-droid sentiment and xenophobia qualify for articles, this certainly does. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • My thought process was that it seemed so small-scale compared to droid, species, and anti-Jedi sentiment. It's not a matter of whether to cover it, it just seems more appropriate to cover it in the cloning and clone trooper articles. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. Added an image from Star Wars Propaganda and also added it as a source. While it doesn't explicitly use the term "anti-clone sentiment" it is heavily implied and illustrated. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. Mor9347 ForPipadaLogo-UserImage (Talk) 01:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. We shouldn't delete articles based on quality. We should delete them based on notability. There is definitely a theme of anti-clone sentiment in some sources, and it doesn't make sense to cover discrimination against clones in an article about the science/technology of cloning. A conjectural tag with a clean-up of the article to reflect that is what is needed here, not deletion. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 03:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. I think it's fine to keep, given the topic. However, I've changed the intro as it was treating the title as if it was non-conjectural. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. As noted above fine with keeping since the article's been changed to be conjectural (thanks Bonzane) so that it's not misconstruing an ID to readers if it doesn't canonically exist. But, had to leave a wall on the issue or it probably wouldn't have actually gotten changed…the average Confirm tag duration is generally somewhere between 6 to 10 irl years and so is usually at that point agreeing to leave a page in that state for that long. A few from today had been there since 2005; so really no faith in those getting solved.—spookywillowwtalk 04:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. For clone rights! GormCyborg (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  11. Fan26 (Talk) 18:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  12. Xd1358 (Talk) 13:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  13. @Mustafar29「talk」(he/him/his/hisself) 21:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  14. ThePedantry (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  15. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • Noting although obvious that that {{Confirm}} tag should be sorted in some form by the time this wraps up; the page looks visually like it had an ID but it's just conjectural unless a source can be provided for that name. And usually confirm tags, when left unsolved, get chucked in {{Verify}} if they stay for an extended period, so…yeah. The other sentiment and discrimination articles (like the droid one) do have sources defining the IU ID, so just noting that the page is somewhat misleading voters by making that assertion right now without basis, thus making it seem more prominent than it is, since IDs typically always add a layer of notability/prominence.—spookywillowwtalk 00:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Completely agree with your statement about it being a conjectural title, which is why I added the tag when I also added the image from Star Wars Propaganda which illustrates the sentiment. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I am very on the fence about this due to the fact that there is no IU ID. It certainly seems like if properly fleshed out, this article would be quite useful and necessary (in my opinion). However, given the current nature of the article and the conjectural nature (per spooky's comments), I am not sure. I've cleaned some of it up but I think I will probably wait to cast my vote for the meantime. Wok142 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Now that the article has been changed to read "A sentiment against cloned individuals," is this a general phenomenon for any/all clones or is it specifically referring to Republic clone troopers? Wok142 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I will note that "Unhealed Wounds, Unforgotten Prejudices" from The Last Command Sourcebook/The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook provides solid material for the skeleton of a related Legends article, should the canon article be kept. That piece uses phrases like "a great deal of clone hatred" and "some prejudice concerning the idea of cloning," so "Clone hatred" or "Clone prejudice" might be appropriate conjectural titles. jSarek (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)