Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Articles for common English words

Do we really need to have a Wookieepedia article for every word in the English language that has ever appeared in a canon source? I'm referring to articles such as Shutter, Window, Curtain, etc. These articles are basically just standard dictionary definitions of the words, and have virtually nothing to do with Star Wars. I have no problem with articles for words that are used in a different sense in Star Wars, or which show some sort of relevance to Star Wars. For example, the article for Riot starts off with a pretty standard dictionary-type definition for the word riot, but then it goes on to list various significant riots in-universe. That makes it relevant, and a perfectly fine article for Wookieepedia. Should we mark the simple dictionary definition-type articles for deletion? Doluk 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Shoe salesman. MadclawShyriiwook! 17:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Shutter, curtain, and window are NOT words. They are nouns. They are objects. The articles at shutter, window, and curtain are not definitions, they are explanations. They are canon objects that indisputably exist in the Star Wars universe; that is how they "some sort of relevance to Star Wars." There is absolutely no difference between them and articles on other physical objects on the wiki. I presume you don't want to delete the lightsaber article? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This question has been done to death, and every time someone new asks it I feel like banning them purely on principle. Questioning the need for these articles is moronic, and that's as politely as I can say that. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You could put such an article in Wookieepedia:Trash compactor, but unless you can find an argument that hasn't been done to death in one of the discussions linked on Talk:Breast, you're unlikely to convince enough users. I personally don't find a lot of these articles to be of very much interest (see my comments on Template talk:DidYouKnow), but since they don't harm the rest of the articles, and they are perfectly canonical and verifiable in-universe articles, we'd need to have a very compelling reason to delete them. "Goes little beyond the standard dictionary definition" isn't enough in this case. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the first guy, those definitions are pretty lame. Standard at best. You might as well make pages for nails, wood, timlars (the plastic or metal tips of shoelaces). These items all exist in the SWU. --Riridadaecho7007Solo 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • If you have a citation where these items are referred to by name, by all means add them. (Though I seriously doubt timlars are referred to anywhere . . . hell, I doubt shoelaces are referred to anywhere.) jSarek 04:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My point was, there isn't a need for those articles unless they have some importance to a story. For example shutters. Basic definition. Now, if the definition was describing something particular to SWU about the shutters, Sand-shutters, or Shutters on a Star-Destroyer, Hell a Y-wing, that would make sense. That would be information of importance. Not "Shutters were devices fixed on windows which could be closed, preventing beings from looking through the window. They were an alternative to curtains, though the latter appears to have been more widespread. " Uhh, duh. --Riridadaecho7007Solo 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The fact that everyone knows what shutters are is a really, really bad reason to delete. There is a need for these articles; they're canon objects that indisputably exist in the Star Wars universe. We'd be incomplete if we left them out. "Information of importance" is subjective; anyway, the fact that they exist in the Star Wars universe makes them important enough to have an article. I'm starting to agree with Culator. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Dulok and Riridadaecho7. If there is something specific to the Star Wars universe about the item, keep it. Otherwise it can become a bit stupid. --Eyrezer 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Windows are of certain notability in several sources including movies, comics books, and computer games. The same goes for most other "common English words"; they're there IU, they're mentioned, named and all.... and in many cases characters interact with them directly. KEJ 13:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • At Darth Culator: so you think I'm being moronic, and that's as politely as you can put it? I'm sorry if I hit on something that's obviously a sore spot for you, but I would expect a little more maturity from an administrator. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks these articles are silly, but you're perfectly free to disagree with me. For that matter if the general consensus from previous discussions (I haven't seen these discussions, other than a little bit on a talk page for one of the articles in question) was that we should keep them, then I'm perfectly fine with that. I will point out, however, that if we're going to keep articles like that, then we should also make sure that we write articles for other things which meet the same criteria (ie. nouns that appear in canon), like: nose, ear, cup, desk, chair, house, leaf, etc. Those ones are just off the top of my head, but all of them appeared in the movies, all of them have appeared by name in EU sources, and all of them are nouns. In my opinion it borders on the ridiculous (actually, in my opinion it's gone past the border, through customs, and has attained landed immigrant status in the ridiculous ;-), but if I'm in the minority, then so be it, and I won't bring it up again. Doluk 16:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if any of those nouns have been mentioned by name in any sources (appearing in a movie is a bit more iffy, as the name becomes conjectural), then there's no reason why you shouldn't create the articles. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • That's my point - all of the nouns that I used as examples have been mentioned by name in multiple novels, sourcebooks, RPG products, etc. for the simple reason that they are common English words. I really don't see the point in making articles about any of them, however, unless it is somehow relevant to the Star Wars universe (and by that I don't mean saying "many species in the galaxy have noses"). Using the example of nose (which, I should point out, is a hypothetical example, since there is currently no article for nose on Wookieepedia), you could make a relevant article out of it by not simply sticking to a bog-standard dictionary definition. If you had the article talk about the differences between the noses of some common in-universe species, then it could actually be a useful article. Anyway, like I said above, that's just my opinion, and I'm happy to bow down to the will of the community. Doluk 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Err... you can't just put a dictionary definition in. And only if Noses have been mentioned by name then can you make an article for it - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 17:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
          • That's exactly what I'm talking about, Kingpin13. The articles that I'm objecting to as being silly are basically nothing but a standard dictionary definition - if the article goes beyond that in some way that makes it more relevant to the Star Wars universe, then I've got absolutely no problem with it. And actually, I shouldn't have included Window on my original list, as that article does have some useful information about some substances that windows are made from in-universe, as well as some info about windows on Coruscant. For the type of article that I'm really talking about, check out Shutter. Oh, and for my hypothetical example of nose, it has been mentioned by name in multiple sources. It's such a common word in the English language, that it can't help but be mentioned multiple times, especially in descriptive passages, but also in dialogue. Doluk 17:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Well nose can have an article then. It's not that I like articles like this but, as this wiki is trying to provide information on everything Star Wars, I say keep them, it's not like the quality of the wiki is lessened by these articles, if anything it's increased. - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Basically, I think it boilds down to this: "They are kinda silly, yes. but there is no real ground for deletion besides their sillines (Which is NO ground for deletion here) so leave them be. And don't start creating articles on Noses, and Doorknobs and Buttons just to prove a point, THAT would be lame. Concentrate on more productive Wookiee-things and if some dude wants to add an article on Dirt or Trashcans... let the dude be." Carlitos Moff 00:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
                • These articles should have a special tag (togglable in user CP) to prevent us to see them when using "Random article" so we'll lose less time. 20px Dreossk | 04:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Shall we discuss the ridiculousness of water or tree too? These things exist on this wiki under these names because they were mentioned in in-universe sources using those names, plus there is enough information to render them unique enough to inform users of how water and trees are used in the GFFA. Now perhaps an article on chair isn't worthy enough of article status in itself, however if you link to different types of chairs in the GFFA, then it acts as a disambiguation page, which is perfectly fine on Wookieepedia. Nose is not an object like a chair where one can build it, fix it, or sell it. Rather if nose was to be created, I would suggest merging it to a general biology article covering the most mundane of body parts. On the other hand, articles like spleen are worthy as articles because they can be removed and used, such as in the case of dianoga tea, made from its spleen. Suddenly the spleen isn't so dictionary anymore, but it has a relevant connection to the GFFA. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This topic has been dead for a few days, now; can we please keep it that way? If people have a problem with these articles, by all means start a mass VfDage or CT, but otherwise, I think there's nothing more to say. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)