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) 16:42, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
So, today I saw a large bunch of articles for Unidentified Jedi being created, based a single visual depiction. Using an illustration from either a Wizards of the Coast sourcebook or a card from Star Wars Galaxies Trading Card Game those articles simply restate the information from the image and are marked as stubs, though any new information about those characters is nigh impossible to be released. Example are:
Do we really create a new article for every single character depicted ever now? The deletionist in me is crying upon seeing this. SWG TCG alone has hundreds of illustrations of individuals besides the one already uploaded - not only Jedi, but dark-siders, Rebels and Imperials, smugglers and other criminals as well. Should we create an article for each and every one of them, despite the fact that those persons would be never given names or ever appear anywhere again? More important, what's the point in having an article that simply describes what's already obvious from the image?
"This male Human Jedi Knight was a member of the Jedi Order meditating before entering the battle". This simple sentence not only repeats the obvious, it also makes too much assumptions. Incorrect ones, because as the card game takes place sometime ABY, he most likely wasn't a member of the Order, nor was he present in Rise of the Empire era. And how do we know that he meditated before the battle, not after? Don't get me wrong, I don't suggest to nuke all unidentified characters. But there are some that actually do something on the stories, just without receiving a name, and some that are only present on a single image, how much could be said about them?
I think that the so-called hyper-inclusionists sometimes forget that Wookieepedia exists not for its editors, but for its readers. I cannot imagine someone benefiting from reading the article that states: "This H'nemthe was a Jedi, as you can see on the picture", just as I cannot imagine a reader learning something from the article on Chair. I have put together a very rough draft of the rules for the notability of such articles, and I wonder: would I get any support at all if I eventually take this to CT? Please take time to leave a short respond. Thank you. MauserComlink 10:47, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
While I think there are some articles which are not entirely useful to readers, and I do agree we should not be an English dictionary for things like "trap" which do not change in meaning, I would personally prefer the trash compactor to be used for most of them so that people can argue whether the articles can be expanded to contain unique Star Wars content on a case-by-case basis. The example you have given with chair for example. The chair article at the moment is not very useful, but it could very easily be expanded to include information on the uniqueness of chairs in the Star Wars galaxy, as therearemanyexamples of chairs which are unique to Star Wars. Some parts of your current draft policy I agree with such as those on simple terms that don't change in meaning, but with some of your examples for objects, I would rather see the trash compactor used so they can be judged on a case-by-case basis and people can discuss whether unique Star Wars content can be included in the article. Grunny(Talk) 11:24, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for linking all those specific chairs to me. Now, the way I see it, we should make Chair the soft disambiguation page, keeping only the first sentence and providing links to the ones you listed (much like stone or fish). Regarding the TC for individual articles - be assured, there's no need to worry. Even if this idea somehow passes, nobody would let me on a deletion spree anyway, we would still have to decide the fate of most articles per established process. Thank for your response. MauserComlink 11:29, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
Mauser, I like your proposed policy. I don't know how many people will agree with you, but I think it's a pretty good idea. I am a deletionist, though... :P Chack Jadson(Talk) 13:30, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
I really was just bored and didnt see the harm in it. I tend to be an inclusionist, but if your opposed to it I'll stop, it really doesnt matter to me... Purpilia 18:21, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is that anything in-universe (not just characters) should have its own article if and only if canonical information exists that is unique to that subject. This unique canonical information (or UCI) could be as little as a name and nothing else, but should be unique to that subject only. For example, take the article Three Jedi Masters. There is UCI for the group in that they led the final defense against Operation: Knightfall, but no UCI exists for the individual characters (saying that one used a blue double-bladed lightsaber is not unique to that character as there are almost certainly other individuals who also used a blue double-bladed lightsaber), so the three characters should remain in the group article without being split.
For another example, look at Unidentified Human Jedi (meditating), one of the articles Mauser called out above. This character has no UCI whatsoever, as there are plenty of Human Jedi, most if not all Jedi meditate, and there are probably quite a few Jedi that meditate before a battle. Therefore, this article would be deleted under my proposal. UCI used to justify notability should be always be in-universe, and an image depicting the appearance of the subject should be insufficient to establish notability by itself. At least that's my feeling. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:27, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
If we create articles for everything In-Universe, how long will it be before we have "This unidentified rock resided on Tatooine. R2-D2 rolled past it in 0 BBY"? BTW, the article Three Jedi Masters also includes too much information not stated directly in the game, in time I would like to see it gone as well. MauserComlink 19:39, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mauser. I'm a Splittist, but the Jedi scene on the cards aren't meant to be considered as part of the canon; they're just representations of various Force powers and other things. C Teng 19:30, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
I like the draft of these rules, and I would support it. However, I think that such articles shouldn't be speedily deleted, as articles sometimes are like dictionary entries or like useless articles with no information not because there aren't enough information, but becasue people haven't yet written anymore. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 21:00, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
I would agree, but are any of these articles even able to be expanded? C Tengtalk 12:59, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
A number of them cannot be. There's just not much info on them. Chack Jadson(Talk) 13:18, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I actually think that stormie may pass the notability rules. He actually does something in the story that sets him apart from other stormtrooper, unlike a random Jedi present in a Temple or some Rodian with jacket. I think I will actually try to put those rules on CT once I come up with some better wording. MauserComlink 14:14, December 1, 2009 (UTC)