Forum:TC:Polygyny (second nomination)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Polygyny (second nomination)

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 keep at Polygamy per canon. Graestan(Talk) 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Polygyny (talk - history - links - logs)

Was TCed before to no avail, but the actual term does not seem to appear in canon sources. Two were listed, but upon further inspection were removed as baseless. Nowhere is the term used, and the instances of it in only two IU cultures does not seem to warrant an article. Monogamy doesn't seem to have its own article, although it does appear IU thousands of times more often than polygyny does. The fact that the word "polygyny" was used over "polygamy" is almost a shot in the dark. Look at the article's creation. Come on, people. Graestan(Talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Graestan(Talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete, but if someone else really wants to make an article on marriage, this would be OK as a redirect. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
JMAS Hey, it's me! 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles for abstract concepts are fine, once the term is used in-universe. But this is akin to an article on claustrophobia based on visual interpretation of a comic. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Per SD. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kill it with a double-bladed lightsaber.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Graestan. MadclawShyriiwook! 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Come on. This is just another attempt to tie Star Wars with the real world. Like creating lesbian charachters. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson (Talk) 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. It's called Wikipedia, kids. Unit 8311 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. This is a canonical concept within the Star Wars universe, and it was a very major plot issue in Prelude to Rebellion. The article isn't about the word, which does not to my knowledge appear. Rather, it's about the concept, which undeniably does. Polygyny is a valid word in the English language, which is what we use on this website. A similar example is the Ecumenopolis article; that word was not used in canon, but we were still able to have an article about the canonical subject of planet-wide cities for 3 years, before the word was used in a novel. -LtNOWIS 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because the wiki was lame enough to keep fanon-titled articles around for the past three years doesn't mean such mediocrity has to continue. Also,I sincerely doubt polygyny will take off as a canon term like ecumenopolis did. Any takers on those monogamy and claustrophobia articles? Graestan(Talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not a fanon title. It's a legitimate, real word that describes the entirely canon state of affairs in Cerea and other places. We know that Cerean males had many wives, and we know that it was unusual, hence the article. And fortunately, we have a word to describe that. This is like trying to TC Galactic Republic Chancery election, 32 BBY, which is also a phrase they don't use in canon. -LtNOWIS 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
        • My goal is to prevent anyone from assuming the term itself is canonical, which, despite conjecture tags, is the case when we have an article with the title. When it is linked to in other articles, there is no indication whatsoever that the term, and the system described by the OOU term—which happens to be much less specific than what is laid out for Cereans—is not canonically used. Graestan(Talk) 20:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I totally agree. KEJ 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Yep, completely with Nowis here. -- Ozzel 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per above, though I think it should be used as Polygamy instead. DC 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. The whole argument against it seems inane. The word means what the word means, whether it's used IU or not. It's like trying to argue that there is no 15 ABY because "15 ABY" is never used in canon. Maybe the word isn't used, but the year is, and we have a name for what that year ought to be called. Maybe "polygyny" isn't used in canon, but the concept is and there's a word for that concept. If the word "Human" were never used in ANH, and I'm not sure that it is, we would still know Luke is a human, because that's the word for what he is regardless of if the movie says the word or not. If the universe later feels the need to create a nonsense word to describe polygyny, then fine, we can move it. But until then, it's like arguing that rape doesn't exist IU so long as the act recognized as rape is described, but the word isn't used. Can we not use the word "formidable" to describe something on the Wook if it's not used in canon? It's the English language, people. We're an English-language encyclopedia. Draw your own conclusions. Havac 03:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • No-one's arguing that polygyny doesn't exist in-universe; but, at least in my opinion, creating and keeping such articles is inane — should we have articles on claustrophobia or entomophobia based purely on our interpretation of a comic? Rape most certainly does exist in-universe, but would we have an article at rape? Would you actually use the word "polygyny" in Ki-Adi-Mundi's article? I doubt it. We have articles at stage fright and agoraphobia because they're named as such in text, but I really, really hope we wouldn't have articles because a concept "appears" in a comic; it's not our job to interpret anything, but simply to document it. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per my vote last time around. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Keep at Polygamy per AdmirableAckbar below. jSarek 12:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. There we go. Can you finally see now, guys, that I wasn't denying the existence of the concept, but only the term itself's use? Graestan(Talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to marriage, have someone expand the article to discuss more than just Cereans and Kaleesh

  1. The current form of the article boils down to "Cereans had multiple wives, even the Jedi, because they didn't have enough males. So did the Kaleesh, for reasons of their own." Surely someone can expand that to something more comprehensive. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. JMAS Hey, it's me! 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

When the fact that ecumenopolis was not an actual canon term was pointed out to me after having used it in articles, I readily agreed that it should have been taken out. It was good to see that Coruscant Nights I decided to finally canonize that name for the concept of a world-city, but that's no reason to assume that the same will be done for polygamy. Near as I can tell, the concept only ever appears in the one comic series (though admittedly my knowledge of that is limited). That said, probably the best result would be to delete the article and merge the concept of multiple spouses in Cerean culture into the Cerean article.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 23:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • How is Cerean marital custom described in the actual comic? Perhaps a simple move to "multiple marriage" or "multiple wives" or however it's canonically described in the comic would let us keep the info in a separate article without having to worry about the canonicity of the name. If that fails, there's also Template:Conjecture to consider. jSarek 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this TC can be closed, because I just stumbled upon a mention of "polygamy" in NEGAS and have moved the article accordingly. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we just call it an earth reference? DarTah Ravin SPEAK!
    • I'd only put those on the list if they refer to a place, person, or species on Earth. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)