FANDOM


Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Random conjectural space-cloggers


I really don't like this tendency of making up garbage conjecture articles for every bit of trivial background data. They just take up space with hot air and serve no useful function. I think we need some sort of policy or guideline along the lines of: if there's nothing noteworthy to say about an item, then we don't need an article about it.

I don't necessarily mind placeholder-entitled articles based around something that is obviously noteworthy (see Four unnamed Imperial Royal_Guards), nor of course I am I opposed to stub articles where we don't know much beyond the name (see Dalla the Hutt). But an article should satisfy at least one of these, and too many articles don't seem to have either.

A prime example is the blue lizard of Endor--the article itself admits the critter is not named, so why bother making a conjectural article for something so incredibly minor and uber-obscure? This creature fails any sort of notability test I can imagine. Another example is the Kuat battlecruiser--it's so nonspecific as to be nearly useless, and the BTS conjecture is very nearly as long as the article proper.

I've been hitting a bunch of articles with VFDs, but tackling this on an individual basis seems like trying to stem a tide with a thimble. Am I the only one who doesn't think that not every funky bug in Tales of the Jedi requires an article unto itself?--Valin Kenobi 08:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It's Canon, it's there, we've got it. We're not going to limit ourselves like the Databank. .... 08:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For past concerns of this nature we've created lists or galleries of nameless things (see List of unnamed vehicles and Gallery of unidentified species for examples). I could've sworn we had a list or gallery of unidentified creatures, but I'm not finding it right now. That's probably where these should go. That way, we still have them, but don't waste article space on something we have nothing to say about, and keep them all in one convenient place so they're easy to find. jSarek 09:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with thefourdotelipsis. There's no such thing as "too obscure" on Wookieepedia. Adamwankenobi 10:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but there *is* such a thing as "too little information to create a coherent entry." jSarek 11:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Valin, I have to admit I've noticed your penchant for wanting to delete lots of these background characters/creatures that are depicted but have no names. It would truly be a disservice to this Wiki, I feel, to not be as thorough as possible. Instead of worrying about deleting this sort of thing, I think our attentions should be focused towards rooting out other less-suited examples. Cutch 13:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, yes, to Cutch you must listen! Adamwankenobi 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a difference between being thorough, and constructing conjecturally-titled articles around every random bit of information, even (especially) when we don't have anything useful to say about said item. It makes the "real" articles harder to find when you have to sift thru tons of what I consider filler (although I'll grant that I appear to be in the minority). I stand by what I said. And I agree with both posts jSarek made.Valin Kenobi 08:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with what JSarek's comments. Too little information, put it on a 'List of unknown something' page, not an article by itself. -Fnlayson 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As long as the information is somewhere on the wiki. Adamwankenobi 18:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd say that if we have more to say than simply "X existed", it can get its own article. It's not as if we have to worry about space. I really don't think there's anything so unimportant that we should exclude it from Wookieepedia. Havac 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You know where I stand as a inclusionist. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm kind of leery about including creatures which were only pictured in the background of one comic, but which were never given a name and didn't take part in the storyline. However, I'd like to take a "mergist" position on those, and have articles like "unidentified creatures of Ziost" or something like that. I'd also like to point out that, as Forum:Unknown Characters states, unidentified characters from the movies are relatively high-profile, and should probably get their own page to help prevent them being assigned fanon names. —Silly Dan (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. While I don't think they warrant full articles when there's really nothing to say for so many of them, galleries and merged articles seem like a good solution for these scraps and tidbits.--Valin Kenobi 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know. I just fail to see the problem with having the articles, as galleries inherently cut out information to only a name and picture, and don't allow the subject to be categorized. As space is not an issue, I really don't see why we should be offerring less information simply because we don't have a ton of information. Havac 18:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The problem is that a two sentence article with a picture is very useful. Essentially it says, "Made-up name smuggler was on Endor in 36 ABY. He wore brown pants." That doesn't really provide anyone with useful information. Instead, that article should be combined elsewhere to give a greater picture. There was a smuggler on Endor in 36 ABY? Well that must mean that it was involved in galactic commerce at some level or that it had/needed specific goods...etc. Articles should be strengthened with these pieces of canon background information; mini-articles covering them are unhelpful. --SparqMan 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with SparqMan as far as his example goes, but I think the situation is different when unique species are involved, as is the case above. -BaronGrackle 14:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
          • A Gallary page is not the only way to go. A short decription like that could be included in a List (or whatever) page instead. -Fnlayson 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to elaborate:
  1. Space is not an issue. Although organizing the stubs might be an issue
  2. This Wiki has a "no such thing as obscure" policy. So these conjectural articles deserve a place here.
  3. The Image itself is the article. Star Wars is a visual story, there are probably still hundreds of unindentified and uncatalogued items that appear in the movies alone that still isnt in our wiki or the holocron with the only information we have is the image itself.
  4. We are a reference for the obscure. Maybe not, because our biggest articles are the least obscure, but some people are already using our wiki for this purpose(rumor has it some higher ups do too) and to rival the holocron's obscure references.
  5. fairuse does not allow a gallery only article. "A gallery of unnamed creatures" without the images being included in their own article is, IIRC, something fairuse doesnt cover and as I have said above these images deserve their place hear.

--Razzy1319 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no objection to most of your points. 1) Agreed, but I posit that it's more than just a matter of cataloging the stubs; it's a matter of making a wide variety of title-less subjects transparent to the user. A list or gallery can do this; independent articles cannot. 3) An article must do more than just show something; it must *say* something. 5) If fair use doesn't allow a gallery, then it also won't allow an article consisting of nothing but the image. jSarek 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't care if it's named or not. If it's canonical, it should be documented with an article in this wiki. KEJ 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait, wait, people want to remove canon information...and yet they want to keep American Graffiti. Well...there you go. .... 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not for removing canon information . . . but a lot of these articles *contain no information*. That's the point. For those that *do* have some small amount of information, it's typically *better presented* in list or gallery form so that it's more readily accessible to people looking for it. If you're trying to find some critter from Dark Empire II and can't win at the "guess the conjectural name" game, you'll never find it; if there's a list of unnamed creatures, though, you can simply scroll through it until you find it. jSarek 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Another good point. How can someone consistently find things with a conjectural names. -Fnlayson 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am firmly opposed to deleting articles on unnamed "conjectural space-cloggers" and almost as opposed to moving all of them into a single page. Kuralyov 02:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Believe it or not, I'm totally with Kuralyov. Havac 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • In regards to how to find these articles, they should be linked from the pages of the stories they appear in. A critter for Dark Empire II should appear on that article's list of species. -- Ozzel 20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep as individual articlesEdit

Merge into single pageEdit

CommentsEdit

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.