Forum:TC:Companion galaxies

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Companion galaxies

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 Redirect all to The galaxy/Legends. Imperators II(Talk) 11:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the satellite dwarf galaxies, The Essential Atlas first describes Companions Aurek and Besh, then says "As for Companions Cresh through Grek, they're much further out".

That's the extent of what we have, it doesn't mention that there are 7, or that Cresh through Grek = Cresh, Dorn, Esk, Forn, Grek—this is extrapolation and assumptions. Whilst they are a solid hypotheses and logic, it is still speculation.

As such, I'm proposing those companion galaxies that weren't ID'd be deleted. As the logic and known information is completely the same across the articles, it is also worth voting once for all of them, rather than separately.

I also don't think it's worth redirecting them, since it wouldn't be clear which Companion the user was actually looking for.

Companion galaxies

Delete

As nominator Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  1. Samonic ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol 12:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    Sicaptain (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    If this were to be kept then even though we only have 2nd Fleet, 5th Fleet, and 7th Fleet, that would mean I could create fleets 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 through 20 of the Galactic Republic Navy, and similarly Systems Armies 1, 2, 4 through 10 and sector armies 2, 3, 5, 9 through 11, 13 through 20 of the Grand Army of the Republic. While I'd love that, it's just not appropriate --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    Lewisr (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep

I think they’re reasonable inferences and notable. — YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) linkWP:Chiss (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Changed to the redirect option per OOM
  1. Per Yakov. 01miki10 Open comlink 14:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  2. Per above VergenceScatter (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    Per Yakov. Wok142 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    CanePlayz Jedi symbol (Talk) 20:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    Per precedent with Forum:TC:CT-8868 DFaceG (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  4. "They're ranked by distance, closer ones first. So the first one's called Companion Aurek." This clearly states to be by using the word "so" that further companions will also follow the same naming convention, by indicating the the Companion formal name is just determined by its position. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to The galaxy/Legends

  1. The problem I see here isn't whether the names are reasonable inferences; they certainly are, and sure, the rule of thumb is that if a subject has a formal name, then it gets an article. But, as Vitus said, it's not appropriate for the wiki to "fill in the gaps" by creating articles on the basis of giving names to subjects that are 1) not explicitly named in the sources and 2) would otherwise not be deserving of having individual articles of their own. We know that several companion galaxies existed and we can reasonably infer their names, but there is no distinctive quality to the unnamed ones, so they are non-notable. Why have individual articles for them then? They aren't explicitly named, so the rule "if it has a name, it gets an article" does not apply here. Last but not least, considering both the total lack of any unique information between these companion galaxies and the fact that they're unnamed, it is far more effective to just mention the companion galaxies in the the galaxy/Legends article. Circling back to Yakov's point that the names are reasonable inferences, I realise that redirects should be created because of this. Given that they're companion galaxies to the main far, far away one, the best place for the redirects to point to would be the galaxy/Legends. OOM 224 21:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  2. Revising my vote — YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) linkWP:Chiss (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  3. Lewisr (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  4. Sicaptain (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  6. OOM's argument is better than that I had with myself, whereby I convinced me that a redirect would be without just cause for existence. Heretofore I renounce my claim to delete and throw mine support to that of redirect, wherein the outcome achieve the status of consensus. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  7. Despite the precedent I provided above, I agree that the question of whether or not the subjects are significant is iffy. Unlike Eight-eight-six-eight, who had a semi-discernable role and presence, the companion galaxies don't have these discernable traits.DFaceG (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  8. Thanks for that, OOM, you put it into words much better than I could! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  9. Solid arguments on OOM's part SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  10. KingWookiee (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  11. Vitus and OOM win this one. Imperators II(Talk) 06:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  12. Wok142 (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  13. Fine with it if the information is covered somewhere else. CanePlayz Jedi symbol (Talk) 01:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  14. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 07:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  15. Corellian PremierRogue SquadronMTFBWY 17:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  16. NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

  • (I left this out of my comment above since it's not key to the argument there, but it was a part of my thought process and is an addendum to Vitus' point): Keeping these articles would set a bad precedence for things like the Republic military units, and even if the slippery slope doesn't actually happen, i.e. we maintain the current practice of not having articles for the unnamed military units, we'll end up being even more inconsistent in article notability standards. OOM 224 21:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Just realized this but in the endnotes for TEA, part 2 (Available from starwars.com) "JASON: The biggest surprise here will be the addition of five other satellite galaxies besides the two we see in Episode II". This further cements that these articles should exist. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)