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. Graestan(Talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the FIRST things any article should make clear is what fictional work its subject appears in. Yet nearly every single article on this wiki goes on and on describing subjects in a completely in-universe manner, sometimes without EVER explaining its fictional context! Is Kreia from the game Knights of the Old Republic II? Can't find out from her article, except for "Appearances" at the bottom. And if she should ever appear in another medium, like a novel or comic, those appearances will be on the list side by side with the game, so heaven help any user wanting to know where the bulk of the article's story actually CAME from. "Kreia is a major character in the video game Knights of the Old Republic II" should be almost the first sentence.
This kind of metafictional perspective is not present anywhere. And that's particularly maddening for something like Star Wars, where the concepts of the heroes, the Sith, the Emperor, Galactic history, etc., have constantly evolved. I can't go to the Star Wars wiki to find out when the name "Palpatine" was first widely used for the Emperor? To find out how detailed Lucas's original conception of Sith history was? Astounding. Making it even more frustrating is the fact that so many characters have very long fictional histories culled from countless works; we get lots of details about that history, sure, but not a hint about where each piece came from.
I don't come here to read the stories themselves in detail. I come to get INFORMATION about characters and topics; and then maybe I'll go read/view the stories. That is, if the wiki would tell me where to look. —Unsigned comment by126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs).
Oh, references! So an enyclopedic artitle can be written without any shred of real world perspective, as long as it has references! It's all so clear now. And if I want more information that just the fictional details? —Unsigned comment by188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs).
You'd like the wiki molded into what you would personally like, then? It's a Star Wars encyclopedia, and its purpose is to summarize the stories a given subject appears in. Also, you obviously haven't discovered ref notes; on all FAs and many detailed articles, beside each paragraph/piece of information is a reference note which links to the "Notes and references" section, telling you where the info came from. Viola. Information on real life stuff like Palpatine's name would be found in the BtS, though, like much of the wiki, these are often incomplete—we're not professionals. We're also not here to cater solely for you, and we have some established policies -- such as articles being written in-universe -- that are extremely unlikely to change. (was edit conflicted) -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to go attempt to start your own Wiki about Star Wars real-world facts. See how far you get with that, which likely won't be very far at all. - JMASHey, it's me! 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You do know that most articles with any significant content have "Behind the scenes" sections, right? This is where we put all of the material that is, you know, "behind the scenes." Between that and the detailed referencing of most of our good articles is everything you've indicated you want to know (if we know it, that is - for instance, Lucas has been very tight-lipped about his original plans for the Sith, so you won't find much here on that just because we just plain don't know it). If you're complaining about the *order* the information is in, boo kriffin' hoo. This is the way encyclopedias on fiction are almost always done, be it hard-copy works like the Star Wars Encyclopedia or Star Trek Encyclopedia, to anynumberofotheronlineresourcesforfictionaluniverses. So get over your issue. jSarek 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Too bad, so sad? This Wiki wasn't created to cater to your preferences. The world doesn't revolve around you. This Wiki has been operating since 2005 (or was it 2004?) with thousands of users since. It's been going pretty well, and it's not going to change just because you're the only person to have a problem with it (that's come forward about it, at least). Seems like the good majority of people like it the way it is. Go make your own Wiki then? I mean, it's not terribly difficult to read the references that are included in every article, telling you where that specific piece of information came from. "Darth Revan was the Master of Darth Malak." Reference? Knights of the Old Republic. And, at the end of almost every article, there is a Behind the scenes section to help with the rest of your needs. --Danik Kreldin 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
As a general caveat, responses are fine, but there's no need to feed the trolls. Atarumaster88(Talk page) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't go to the Star Wars wiki to find out when the name "Palpatine" was first widely used for the Emperor? To find out how detailed Lucas's original conception of Sith history was?
You can go to the Palpatine page and the Sith page to find that information sir. Just look down in "Behind the Scenes". It's not that difficult. QuentinGeorge 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It can't be that hard to equate the "Appearances" box that meets your eye almost at the beginning of every article, with the appearances of the article subject? Click it, and the appearances of the subject in question comes into view. VT-16 13:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
And if we would put the appearances in the opening paragraph, it would be huge. For example, would you like to read something like: "Obi-Wan Kenobi was a Jedi from the Old Jedi Order. He appeared in The Phantom Menance, Attack of the Clones, The Clone Wars, Revenge of the Sith, and A New Hope." Thats a long list as it is, and that's only with movies. DarthDragon164Dragon's Lair 12:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)