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) 16:25, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Recently, the article trap was speedily deleted, with the rationale being that "This is an English term, already familiar to anyone who is able to read this wiki." I questioned the decision on the talk page, but Grunny suggested here would be the proper venue. So my apologies, and here we go.
Basically, I'm confused as to why trap was not an acceptable article, but any number of other common English terms are. Trap is "an English term, already familiar to anyone who is able to read this wiki," but so, it seems, are terms like table, chair, city, net, combat knife, eyepatch, shirt, and any number of other things. What distinguishes the article that gets to stay, and what distinguishes the article that needs to go?
The trap article, if I remember correctly, was sourced, illustrated, and decently written. I hope my contributions show that I don't spam the wiki with unnecessary articles. But who knows, maybe I do. Until I understand what distinguished the trap article from, say, the table article, there's a risk I'm going to create more candidates for speedy deletion.
On another note, I must say that it was annoying to not have been warned that an article I created was going to be axed. A note on my talk page letting me know would have been a nice courtesy. Both the article and its talk page were deleted without me having a chance to save the information that they contained, a problem when I needed to formulate my arguments for this page.
Thanks for reading. ~ SavageBob 14:22, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
Though I wasn't the one who originally deleted it, as I said on the talk page, the other things you have listed are objects which may have some differences in the SW universe. "Trap" is just a word as I see it, which means exactly the same thing in the SW universe as it does in English and we are not an English dictionary. However, I would like to hear other peoples' opinions on this. Grunny(Talk) 14:28, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
As the one who requested the deletion, I am probably obliged to answer here. It is no secret that I am a deletionist and believe that table, chair etc. should go as well. My reasoning is explained here. Once I finish working with that page, I will put it through a CT process, so that we could finally set a precedent for all those articles, one way or another. MauserComlink 14:33, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, table is an everyday English word that has a demonstrable use IU as demonstrated in the article via the images depicting two different styles of the furniture. Trap is also an everyday English term and yet is also has several demonstrable examples of it's use IU such as
"This could be a trap, Master. Are you sure you don't need us to go?" "Of course its a trap, Skywalker."
I find myself standing on middle ground on the issue. I am neither a deletionist nor a hyperinclusionist. I'm thinking a case by case basis on these types of terms is warranted. - JMASHey, it's me! 14:45, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
The way I see this case is, tables have particular design characteristics that may be unique to the Star Wars galaxy hence some information which is of use. However, trap is a word, which means any device, stratagem, trick, or the like for catching a person unaware. This meaning does not change in anyway in the Star Wars universe. The word is used IU like any other word, and I don't think we should become a dictionary for every word used IU, that would be ridiculous. We're not going to create an article for "escape" because characters say "he's escaping" IU, or anything like that and I personally don't see why we should for "trap." Grunny(Talk) 14:53, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
I think an article on traps talking about how the Emperor lured the Rebels to Endor or what have you is just having an article on a common English word that we most likely don't need. However, I would argue that when we have specific examples of specific, physical traps used by specific Star Wars cultures, we have to give "trap" as much credence as we give tables or chairs. I'm thinking here of Ewok net traps, Dulok boulder-on-branch traps, and any number of other ones that various "primitive" societies are said to use in the galaxy. ~ SavageBob 18:11, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
I find "trap" to be more interesting than it seemed. I was coincidentially researching for an article about an alien species, and I discover that their culture gives a lot of importance to traps, rejecting hunting. Probably an article like Trap could be expanded analyzing the differences of traps among cultures through the galaxy, such as the Bothans using traps to avoid direct conflict, the Duloks adapting their environment or semi-sentient creatures being able to use traps even if they are not "intelligent". I wouldn't want an article like Trap to be simply a stub, but if it's thoroughly documented, well, it could even be nominated — and I'd vote for it. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:59, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
At least in the case of some of these articles, they act as good disambiguation pages for other items with similar names. Concepts like traps however, as much as we might want to keep it for Ackbar's amusement, aren't going to hold up as easily. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:00, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Grunny. If there is unusual information on the subject that is unique to the SW universe, then it should have its own article, but otherwise it doesn't belong here. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:37, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
As has been said, the difference should be whether or not there is specific Star Wars information. Trap does not appear to have such information, and I would argue that the bar for general concepts and abstract article subjects should be higher than that for physical objects, for which specifics are much easier to come by. In no case would "trap" deserve its own article anyway -- it might be part of an article on warfare or tactics, but it's hardly deserving of its own distinct article. Havac 19:36, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
What would be wrong with an article about traps as used by Duloks, Ewoks, etc.? ~ SavageBob 00:51, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference between the traps of Ewoks and Earthlings, you ask? Barely anything; Lucas just add more booms and bangs. Traps created from trees are common in movies. Think about Arnold in Predator. --Michaeldsuarez(Talk) (Deeds) 01:01, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. First you're talking about real-world traps, then about another fictional movie. And I don't think there are many traps of boulders being supported by twigs, like the Duloks use. ~ SavageBob 02:46, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
Raiders of the Lost Ark has boulder traps. Look, any human on Earth could conceive or create those traps. By being in movies proves that human minds could conceive and possibly engineer such traps. I just can't think of any real-world example, since, well, colleges don't offer degrees in trap-making. --Michaeldsuarez(Talk) (Deeds) 13:37, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Michael, but everything on this website has been conceived by humans. Even a lightsaber is conceptually possible, albeit in a highly modified form (see The Science of Star Wars). I think you're trying to argue that wacky cartoony traps as seen in the Ewoks series are not different enough from the real world to qualify for articles. My counter argument would be that that is a subjective judgement, and one that requires a broader input from the community, hence my modified request below. Let's discuss these first, then delete them, until such a time as there is a clear policy laid out for us lowly editors to follow. ~ SavageBob 16:36, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
I suppose if people are against the article on trap existing (as most of the comments above seem to indicate), I would at least like to request that articles at least get the benefit of the doubt and be placed in the regular deletion queue instead. There still seems to be disagreement about where the bar should be set on these kinds of articles, so the normal deletion page would allow us to debate the issues before the deletion rather than after. Ideally, we'd have a firm policy in place on this (the draft Mauser linked to above is a good start), so until then, can we hold off the speedies? Thanks, ~ SavageBob 02:46, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
Even though I still would strive to delete it - either by a TC or by a proper policy - I agree. Let's set a precedent and vote on a policy in a strict abstract way. MauserComlink 08:15, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
Time to get crackin' on that CT proposal, Mauser! :P ~ SavageBob 16:36, October 16, 2009 (UTC)