Forum:TC:Category:Chalmun's Cantina patrons

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Category:Chalmun's Cantina patrons

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 rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. jSarek 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chalmun's Cantina patrons ([[Talk:Category:Chalmun%27s_Cantina_patrons|talk]] - history - links - logs)

This . . . is a silly category. What's next, Category:People who have been to Corellia? Category:People who have been spotted in Jabba's palace? Let's try to keep the categories to something reasonable and informative instead of making up categories for anything and everything.

Bahleet

  1. Havac 03:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Make a list page and we'll call it even. Graestan(Talk) 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Grae. Unit 8311 07:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Yuck. Thefourdotelipsis 07:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, list page would be better. - Lord Hydronium(Oya!) 21:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Imperialles 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Only if replaced with an OOU list. -- Ozzel 03:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. I say instead, list characters present during ANH and SWHS in the main article, whether it be in an IU or OOU format. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    Or maybe divide Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Characters into subsections, with the cantina scene being one of them? That might be a good idea either way, it being a fairly long list. --Andrew Nagy 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not bahleet

  1. As the person who created the category, it seemed the only way to get rid of the very very ugly "patrons list" on the article itself.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That may be, but perhaps there just . . . shouldn't be a list. Or we should have a separate List of Chalmun's Cantina patrons. Not everything is fixed by a category. I mean, are we going to replace the list of people's lightsaber colors with Category:People with green lightsabers? I sure as sideburns hope not. Havac 04:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • While it's true that categories may not fix everything (the examples you cite are valid ones, too), it could also be said that in this, and in similar instances, that binding a bunch of characters that have little else in common other than their G-level canon appearance in A New Hope in this manner is better than another list article. On the other hand, there's also the number of redlinks in the patrions section of that article; they need to be taken care of in any case. Besides, fully half that article is "patrons".--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • You know why it has a lot of patrons? Because everyone in the history of the entire EU has been to this fricking cantina. Corran Horn, Gavin Darklighter, Booster Terrik . . . everyone's been there. So, if it were actually properly applied, it would have absolutely no ability to tell you anything about ANH. The category is nothing but a collection of people who have, at any time, been to one specific place that isn't even particularly notable. What the hell encyclopedic value does that have? Havac 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. A useful category, given the importance of the place in ANH and, through this, IU generally. KEJ 10:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. I agree that this is a useful category. --Eyrezer 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    Per KEJ and Eyrezer. - AurebeshArialLinkJ.pngAurebeshArialLinkM.pngAurebeshArialLinkA.pngAurebeshArialLinkS.png Hey, it's me! 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Weak not bahleet. I think this should be renamed (suggestions welcome) to make it more specifically aimed at ONLY those who were present in ANH. That is a useful category and one worthy of sticking around, and not as cluttered as Category:Everyone who's ever walked within ten yards of Chalmun's, a.k.a the entire body of Star Wars characters (which this basically covers right now). Wildyoda 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That's still not an encyclopedic category. I mean, yeah, it would be informative to see what characters have actually been seen to drink alcohol . . . but creating a category for that is waaaay, waaaay, waaay too much. We can't create categories for every damn trivial thing under the sun. We have categories for gender, affiliation, species, homeworld, occupation . . . we don't have categories for people by height, or what place they've ever been to, or what their favorite sports team is, or if they use whitening toothpaste. Neither, for that matter, does Wikipedia, and for good reason: it's not encyclopedic. If it's that important to know who showed up in one damn scene of one damn movie, make a list. It's not what categories are for. Havac 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Havac, this is an honest question to solve my confusion. Are you making a point or did you miss what I said? The category suggested would be just for those in the cantina scene' of Episode 4. And whether you meant that or not, I concede the point to you in general, although I do think that in this instance an ANH-only cantina patrons category would be a good, useful, and encyclopedic. This is a Star Wars encyclopedia. Wildyoda 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
        • There's no encyclopedic way to phrase such a category. Category:People who were in Chalmun's Cantina at the exact time Luke Skywalker was inside it would be deleted straight off the bat, no TC. It's a horrifically unencyclopedic thing, on the same level as categorizing people who use whitening toothpaste. It's a triviality which should be addressed through a list. It's absolutely unworthy of making a category, and it would be a horrible precedent. Havac 05:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. I'd have to agree with Eyrezer. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to some type of list being created either, like what has been suggested in the Delete section. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per Greyman. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Peanut gallery

  1. I'm undecided, but why are the droids in this category? They don't serve their kind. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (actually, only 3PO is in the category, which is even more confusing to me)
    • (Probably because 3PO actually stepped inside for a moment before deciding to go back and wait with Artoo... which still does not make him a "patron")
    • Good point. They've been removed.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Changed my mind, but I won't support a delete unless it is confirmed that a list will be made in place of the category. - AurebeshArialLinkJ.pngAurebeshArialLinkM.pngAurebeshArialLinkA.pngAurebeshArialLinkS.png Hey, it's me! 19:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There's nothing in this vote that would stop Goodwood or anyone else creating a list. Havac 04:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Random thoughts

Does this also mean then that Category:Images of Chalmun's Cantina patrons has to die? I voted to keep the category, but even if it were to get overwhelming support to delete it based on Havoc's case that just about everyone and his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate has been to that cantina (which is true), the image category was created with the intent of showing only images of patrons when they are actually IN the cantina. - AurebeshArialLinkJ.pngAurebeshArialLinkM.pngAurebeshArialLinkA.pngAurebeshArialLinkS.png Hey, it's me! 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • There shouldn't be anything wrong with having the image category. In regards to a separate list page, generally-speaking I'm against appearance lists and would rather not have to make one; in fact you could say this category was to be step one in making Chalmun's Cantina an acceptable GA again...or possibly even an FA considering my work on Upper City Cantina.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)