This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Individuals of unknown species ( history - links - logs) | Category:Unknown gender ( history - links - logs)Edit

I was in the process of removing the Individuals of unknown species category (hence it being unpopulated), and Eyrezer suggested it would be best to TC both of these articles instead. I simply contend that having a category for an "unknown" commodity is too arbitrary, and frankly I consider it to be contrary to the "unknown fate" wording stipulation in Wookieepedia's Manual of Style. We wouldn't specify "Unknown" for someone's species or sex in an article's infobox, so why categorize this information? Categories are for a tangible value, like "Individuals from Corellia," and we wouldn't create a similar category for "Individuals of unknown homeworlds." Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete bothEdit

1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Toprawa. Both are unnecessary categories. Grunny ^(Talk) 02:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Toprawa. CC7567 ^(talk) 02:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 03:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. I agree with deletion, categories are for cataloging things we know, in my opinion. OLIOSTER 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

   Per Tope and Olioster. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Mauser^Comlink 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

   - Esjs^(Talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

8. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Tope. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 18:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
10. It really does come down to our in-universe perspective. It's speculatory and a step out-of-universe to state anywhere, including categories, that something is unknown. Leave the out-of-universe categories for out-of-universe articles. As strange as it sounds coming from me, I'd be for making a list as an OOU page before adding or retaining any OOU material in IU articles. Graestan^(Talk) 22:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • While we are in-universe, we also aim to be useful to users. This is a convenient way to navigate the Wookieepedia, and we gain nothing by deleting it, but gain something by keeping it. --Eyrezer 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That's your opinion. Mine is that we should set a standard and keep it. Aside from this, I don't tend to see OOU material in IU articles, and I'd like to extend that standard to categories as well. Graestan^(Talk) 00:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Imperialles 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Per Top. We'll need a bot to go through and remove those categories though. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep bothEdit

1. I'm for keep for two reasons. Firstly, I find these categories useful. I frequently browse both Category:Individuals of unknown species and Category:Images of individuals of unknown species for connections. The category is an unobtrusive place to gather these individuals. Secondly, they are useful as fanon/conjecture deterrents in that very frequently users wrongly presume individuals are human or are male, and add these details in. We have plenty of articles saying "he did this and that" when in fact no gender has been specified. Consequently these categories have been used as anti-fanon devices because when the presence of these categories halts the errant info being added back in.I also like the idea that all characters are in a category relating to gender and species. There is a completeness about it. --Eyrezer 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Keep per Eyrezer. jSarek 04:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Eyrezer. Thefourdotelipsis 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. QuiGonJinn^{There's always a bigger fish.} 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Eyrezer. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
8. I find them useful as well.—Darthtyler ^(Talk) 00:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Upon reflection, I've decided to change my vote. I now see the utility of these categories. - Esjs^(Talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Switching vote per Eyrezer. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 03:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Primarily because Tope is incorrect in asserting that the specific ban on using "its fate was unknown" wording as a lame ending to an article means that we can never ever use the word "unknown" in relation to anything, or admit that something is not known to us. Havac 06:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
12. . Per Havac. QuentinGeorge 06:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Keep, but please rename them to be from a more IU perspective or I will not support them in the future. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Now that I see what he said, I agree with Eyrezer. --Golden Monkey 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Per Eyrezer. —Xwing328^(Talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
16. --Darth tom (Imperial Intelligence) 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
17. I don't really understand what all the fuss is over OOU categories showing up in IU articles or vice versa. There are times where we might have to stretch things to make them work here and in this case, for canon's sake, we need to keep these categories. This is also weird considering there was just a push to delete lists in favor of categories... -- Riffsyphon1024 07:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• I'm told that for some of the items categorized in here, this is their only category. New categories will have to be found should these categories be deleted. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Will that affect Category:Individuals of unidentified species as well? Mauser^Comlink 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• As a bit of extra info, there were around 130 individuals in Category:Individuals of unknown species prior to their removal. --Eyrezer 05:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• I believe we should rename the unknowns to unidentified to fit our current standards a bit better. —Xwing328^(Talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, absolutely. jSarek 01:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)