This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —MJ—Training Room 18:36, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
Someone recently created a conjectural species for the Unidentified mustachioed individual, which I have nominated for a good article. Should we have an article on the guy's species? I was just wondering how I should handle/source this addition. How do we stand on these types of conjectural species articles?--Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 02:09, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
I usually create an Unidentified species article when I nom someone for whom the species is not known. I did for Gormaanda and Doodnik, anyway. Menkooroo 02:19, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with Menkooroo about this in general, for a character for whom we can see virtually nothing of his anatomy, I have a hard time accepting a conjectural species article in this case. All we can see of that guy is his face, and that face could very well make him a Stennes Shifter with a mustache. In other words, I think we need such conjectural species articles only in cases where it's clear that this is a unique species that has not been named before. In this case, it's not. ~Savage 19:27, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with Bob. —MJ—HolocommWednesday, May 23, 2012, 20:38 UTC
Fine by me, should we start a TC on the species article for the guy?--Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 22:16, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
I think so. Conjectural species articles should really be reserved for species that are unambiguously unique and so far unidentified, not something like this that could very easily be a species we already know about. ~Savage 16:11, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
Note: I think Asa Naga's species should be deleted as well. If the character of unknown species could very easily be any number of known species (here Wroonian or Pantoran), it seems silly to me to create an article that implies it's a new and different species. ~Savage 22:45, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
I've always believed that unidentified species articles should only be created when two or more examples of the species exist in canon. Otherwise, all information on the species can easily be presented in the individual's article. Grand Moff Tranner(Comlink) 23:37, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with them if they're only one-member of one-appearance species (we have tons of articles on unidentified individuals with only a single appearance), but I just want to make sure we don't create articles for things that could very well be established species. ~Savage 02:45, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't exactly sure what to do about all these conjectural species. I've offered the editor some advice in regards to naming them (Tope and I have moved several as the titles are very ponderous), have mentioned that the articles be categorized properly (if it's an obvious humanoid, categorize it as such), and pointed out that he shouldn't name them after file names (Mutant Bith-Sullustan, for example) and that some of those articles already exist (Tiperoo). But, it seems that those comments have fallen on deaf ears and I really don't know how to progress from there. Trak NarRamble on 06:39, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
I formed a list of conjectural species that seem suspect below, feel free to add more if you find any.--Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 18:38, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Everything else in Category:Unidentified sentient species checks out in my opinion. Note that what I think should happen if/when these get deleted is that the article on the character of unknown species should simply note the possibilities in the BTS. For instance, for Asa Naga, note in BTS that Naga meets the description of both Wroonians and Pantorans, but no source has yet established which species he belongs to. In my opinion, by making him a member of "Asa Naga's species," we're essentially arguing that he belongs to neither of those species. Better to note the ambiguity in the character article rather than creating a new species out of whole cloth when there may not be one. The same goes for many of the other articles listed above. ~Savage 19:14, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
So do you think we should start some TCs on the worst of these articles and see what the community thinks?--Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 20:26, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe eventually. I'd like to give Eyrezer and others time to pipe in, though. ~Savage 21:25, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Good catch on this, guys. I haven't had the chance to look through all of them yet, but from what I've seen, these should go. And just FWIW, I'd suggest using a CT instead of (or maybe alongside?) any TC(s): that way we can set a definitive ruling on what does and doesn't get an article. Jonjedigrandmaster(Talk) 21:47, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Jozzel could very well be a Theelin, for that matter. Hell, in our audio adaptation, we made her a Theelin. Best to classify her as Near-Human and be done with it. As for the rest, particularly any that reference to other species (I've already told Dantescifi not to name species like that)... I agree, they should go. This started around the time that I was scanning in SotE stuff. Hell, the user's been warned on SWFanon for essentially spamming the site with unnecessary species articles, most of them conjectural and all of them orphaned pages. Trak NarRamble on 05:06, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
I added a whole bunch more to the list. I really don't know at what angle to approach this. I'm leaving that up to someone else. Suffice to say, this is starting to get ridiculous. Trak NarRamble on 04:07, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
I am at a loss as well, we can't CT the whole lot of them. We need to hammer out some kind of policy for these types of articles, but then we still need to decide which ones violate whatever policy we come up with. In any event, I think we should draft some kind of policy and then worry about the individual articles. We should just continue to maintain the list of suspect articles here. I for one do not relish the prospect of thirty-two (or more) TCs. Anyone want to volunteer to write a rough draft for a policy?--Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 04:17, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Last night, during a discussion about Half-Bothans, that satyr green Devaronian from Vader's Quest was called into play, and he was summarily added to the Half-Bothan article. I said that the next thing we see will be an article for him by Dantescifi. I sign on and find just that. So, I redirected it. We seriously do need a policy of some sort and someone to tell the kid to just stop making articles until we can hammer out this policy. Trak NarRamble on 04:25, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, let him play. At the very least, he's doing the hard part of our job for us by finding all these species and letting us figure out which ones to keep or ditch. :) As for any eventually CT, I'd still like to get Eyrezer's feedback as the leader of WP:ALIENS. Once he chips in, I'd be happy to help draft something. ~Savage 11:06, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, whenever I come across some really questionable ones, I've been redirecting them or deleting them, and then reverting the edits made to those character's pages. And jSarek deleted Howzmin's species as the SotE sourcebook flat-out says he's human. Trak NarRamble on 05:12, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
I think it is going to be very difficult to come up with some hard and fast rules, so I will begin by outlining some of my general thoughts.
To me, labelling an article as "unidentified" does not indicate, as some have suggested, that we are asserting that [X] is not any of the known, identified species. It is simply the code language acceptable on the Wookieepedia for saying that something has not been revealed canonically yet. We don't use it in IU text, but it is fine for the namespace and for some categories. Therefore, I don't have a problem with having an article for a species (or character for that matter) that could later be retconned or identified as a pre-existing species (or character). So, for instance, just because the Unidentified Gibbela speciescould be identified as the Dazouri, does not mean that we should not have the Unidentified Gibbela species article.
I would also argue that there is just as good a case for giving primacy to an unidentified species article as to the unidentified individual article. The reason for this is that articles on individuals rarely contain significant detail on appearance, while articles on a species do contain information on the acts of individuals. As a concrete example, I think Unidentified two-headed species is more significant than Unidentified two-headed patron, and if there happened to be two unidentified individuals of the same species, focusing on the species article would avoid fragmentation of information. In other words, I would prefer a rule that redirected unidentified individuals to the unidentified species article, than the other way around. See, for instance stalk-eyed species: better to have that than several tiny articles on various individuals (except in the case where an individual is named, of course).
Equally, I share people's concerns about creating a article for the species of every blue-skinned individuals, etc, that could be a Wroonian or Pantoran. If Wroonian or Pantoran to be properly written up, it would be appropriate to raise many of these examples in the Behind the scenes sections. I would submit the BTS of Tynnan as an example that works. I suggest this should be the preferred approach, coupled with using the indivdual's BTS to make the same point. This is the option Bob advocates at the start of the Discussion section.
Another problem that has given this issue some attention is that many of the articles created are of low quality. Many are simply an infobox with a picture and a single supporting sentence. The example of Howzmin raised by TrakNar suggests to me that the user in question is not actually researching the species, and may just be relying on information already on the Wook. --Eyrezer 10:26, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit warier of the "unidentified species" moniker, since I do think it implies that this is a unique species and not anything else. That's why I advocate that we only allow these kind of articles only in situations where the species in question is unique beyond a certain level of reasonable doubt (I mean, at one point, Doodnik was almost retconned as a Besalisk, so there's no telling what a retcon might do). There will be borderline cases (like Unidentified Gibbela species), but that's a case where we have distinct societal and cultural elements of the species described that provide enough evidence that this could reasonably be a different species from Dazouri; in other words, in that case, there's not an article on the species of some random background character. So I don't think adopting some standards would necessarily make such articles disappear.
I think I disagree about giving primacy to the unidentified species than the individual in all cases. In some it definitely makes sense, like with the stalk-eyed species. These are all clearly the same species, and having a single article to talk about them is a perfectly sensible idea. But for an unknown character of an unambiguously unknown species, I'd still like to have both articles ([[Unidentified X cantina patron]] and [[Unidentified X cantina patron's species]]) when the species is, again, beyond some reasonable doubt a unique one. For individuals like a random blue-skinned cantina waitress or whatever, where there is not reasonable doubt that her species is unique, I'd rather just mention her species ambiguity in her BTS section, and then make a note of her in the BTS of Wroonian and Pantoran. Indeed, I'd be happy to do such general maintenance in preparation for cleaning up the list of articles listed above. :)
I suppose my general attitude, then, could be summed up as this: For characters whose species is unidentified, first try to duck test the species (e.g., it looks like a Gotal, so it must be a Gotal). If that doesn't work since the species meets the criteria for more than one species (like Wroonian and Pantoran; or for a known non-Human wearing body armor), note the ambiguity in the [[Unidentified X character]] article's BTS and (if reasonable) in the BTS of the species articles to which it could be placed (so, [[Wroonian]] and [[Pantoran]] for a blue-skinned near-Human, but not every humanoid species for the body armor dude). Finally, if neither of the above two options is possible, make a new [[Unidentified X character's species]] article. Different rules of thumb are of course needed for other situations, where it's not just a random character whose species is unknown, but a society or something. ~Savage 12:33, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
I think your policy, Bob, might be the way to go. Duck test, then ambiguity with similar-looking members of random species, and then, if the individual does not meet any of the criteria, then and only then, give them their own conjectural article. Particularly if there are more than one member of this ambiguous species present or this character is prominent in some way.
Some conjectural species I'm on the fence about, particularly background individuals who have no lines of dialogue or any real purpose in the scene other than a background fixture. One could argue that those individuals deserve articles, however, they were tucked into the background and one can only get poor-quality images of a corner of their head, and they're never seen again. When it comes to crowd shots, artists will often add some uniqueness to them, and when you have an intergalactic crowd, it's more fun to draw up your own little creations or Easter eggs and sneak them into the background, rather than populate it with existing species. For example, the Invisible Man here behind Gran Wannabe. Does he deserve an article? Not really. Clearly, he was tucked in there for fun.
The sooner we can hammer out a solid policy regarding these articles, the better. In the meantime, however, if there are no objections, I'll go through these articles and duck test or ambig a few of the really questionable ones. If it's something like "Unidentified elfin dame," I'll just drop the Sephi note on the individual's BTS and kill off the species article. Trak NarRamble on 03:08, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
Well, those background fun-to-draw aliens are canon, so I don't personally see any issues with them. It's not like Random Stormtrooper #32, since these random individuals presumably represent an entire species of beings. As for what to do next, I don't know if we should move to a CT, or simply point to this discussion and call it consensus. Either way, I'd hold off on deleting any of these for the moment so we can either do the CT or allow a few more days for any more opinions before acting. ~Savage 18:26, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
Very well. Though, if I see an article for the aforementioned Invisible Man, I'll know who to yell at. :P Trak NarRamble on 02:41, June 8, 2012 (UTC)