Forum:TC:Bitizen

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Bitizen
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 Redirect and merge. Lewisr (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Bitizen (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

While I do lament the lack of feasibility in documenting this game nowadays and wish our coverage on it was better, this page does very little to justify its own existence. It is an explicitly out-of-universe page documenting a game mechanic that would be far better suited for documentation for Star Wars: Tiny Death Star itself. To boot, aside from the introductory paragraph, the entire article is wholly a list of possible names for the in-game NPCs in the game. Given our current scope and manual of style policy, this article sort of just goes against the grain in every possible way.

As for why I am contesting the page itself rather than the content, there isn't anything to suggest that a "Bitizen" is an actual distinct entity in an in-universe sense comparatively to your average entity (organic or inorganic). Functionally, it is literally just another word for "citizen." As far as I know, this is a term derived from the Tiny Tower game and re-used for Tiny Death Star. Obviously I'm aware of IDs qualifying subjects for an article—hell, it's the easiest notability requirement to verify. But this is akin to studs, Legends gold bricks, and minikits (until now) from the LEGO games: a game mechanic term with no actual in-universe bearing that isn't even unique to Star Wars to boot, and therefore incredibly dubious notability.

Once again, with Tiny Death Star no longer being playable, I do believe these names are worth documenting, but they should be on the article for the game itself.

Edit: Further reading of the article in question has led me to notice the last list on the page isn't even a list of hard, confirmable data; it's quite literally an assortment of randomly generated names that were just possible to see in-game. As far as I can see, only the first and last name lists are the actual real data on the article. The most I see maybe going for the last list is that whether or not a character is a spy might be associated with particular names or combinations of names? But as the game is no longer playable, I have no means of verifying this.

Edit 2: After even further reading I've noticed that the information is outright copied from another wiki. While, again, I believe the info merits documentation especially considering the status of the game, it appears the data hasn't even really been fully verified?

Redirect and merge to Star Wars: Tiny Death Star

  1. As nominator. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  2. CometSmudge (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  3. Lewisr (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  4. —spookywillowwtalk 23:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  6. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 04:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  7. Per Ewok Village. It's not too long a list. Having them on the same page works. OOM 224 13:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  8. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  9. Per OOM Fan26 (Talk) 20:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  10. StarWarsFan327 (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  11. Booply (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  12. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 13:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  13. Asithol (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete

Keep

  1. The article probably needs some love, but precedent for articles like this exists, per List of computer-controlled character names in Battlefront games and List of computer-controlled character names in Star Wars: Squadrons. Stake black msg 01:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    • I would be of the argument these articles should likewise not exist and their content should be moved to their respective games’ articles. In general we usually don’t deal in lists too often anymore and even in cases like this where the list has justification in existing, they certainly still don’t deserve an article all their own imo. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    • Per what Thannus said. Also, if anything, I'm pretty sure the consensus result of this TC would be the precedent for those 2 articles going forward instead as it's going to be backed by the community. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 04:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
      • Is the information to be merged into the main articles? That would add unnecessary bloat to them IMO. Stake black msg 05:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
        • If it really comes to it, anyone is welcome to set up separate CTs for certain exceptions and get consensus then. Though for Tiny Tower specifically, the list is brief enough that the game article should suffice. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 13:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  2. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • Forgot to mention in the actual body of the TC, but the wording of the article is also highly speculatory. We don't really mess with that "might be canon" stuff when we can actually help it. There's no source for this claim at all and I would myself be inclined to believe the game as a whole is just straight up non-canon? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    • Granted, probably best that this particular note isn't in the body as speculation doesn't render the article automatically non-notable; we have speculatory content on inarguably notable subjects all the time. It's sort of just a cherry on top for this whole thing. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)