Forum:CT Archive/Notability Policy: In-Universe Subjects

Okay, let's try it and see how it goes. A flood of minor redundant articles continues without end, with such gems as Jedi Mickey's lightsaber (directly violating established consensus on lightsabers), Unidentified red planet (Indiana Jones's system) (we have deleted a non-canonical Mars before) and my personal favorite Unidentified dancer (no comments). Before taking dozens of them to TC at once, a line has to drawn somewhere. LOST-Malachi (talk) 07:46, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

In-universe subjects
The following guidelines will help determine whether an in-universe subject (character, location, device etc.) requires a separate article on Wookieepedia:


 * 1) Any subject that was given a unique name, nickname, alias or callsign in canon should be given a separate article, regardless of its relevance or importance within the given source.
 * 2) * This is the criteria most obviously helpful to the readers, since most users of Wookieepedia would search for articles based on canonical name.
 * 3) Any subject that was given a notable role in the narrative should be given a separate article under a conjectural title.
 * 4) * The rationale for this criteria is that the subject that played a role in the narrative was consciously created for the story by the author, just went unnamed, and non-trivial information about it can be given to the readers. For example: Connor Freeman's father, Palpatine family starship, Unidentified Gibbela species.
 * 5) Any subject that appears in more than one source (excluding reprints and re-releases of previous works) and can be clearly identified as being the same with little to no room for ambiguity, should be given a separate article.
 * 6) * If two or more separate works feature the same unnamed character, creature, vehicle design etc., it means an author deliberately decided to reuse a pre-existing element of canon. In this case, even if both appearances remain extremely minor, an article on such subject would provide valuable information to the reader.
 * 7) If a subject is only given a passing mention in the narrative, with no context or description, it should not be given a separate article.
 * 8) * For example, if a character in a novel has a conversation with an unidentified Devaronian patron in a cantina, the Devaronian can have a separate article. If, however, it is mentioned that "over a dozen species were present in the cantina, among them a Zabrak, an Ortolan and a Devaronian", then the Devaronian should not have a separate article, as it would be extremely uninformative.
 * 9) The article must pass the "duck test". If it looks like a bantha, sounds like a bantha, smells like a bantha, moves like a bantha and acts like a bantha, then it is a bantha and not an Unidentified bantha-looking creature.
 * 10) * When dealing with visual sources, be aware of the concept of artistic license: hundreds of illustrators worked on Star Wars at different times and no two of them share the same vision, style and technique. So if a creature, a species or a starship has only minor differences from a pre-established subject or there is otherwise room for ambiguity, it is generally safe to assume the deviations from an established canonical design to be artistic license and not a totally separate but unnamed animal, race or vehicle.

''These five basic rules received no objections in SH. They basically describe the established common practice and are for the most part enforced already. Very few existing articles would be subjected to merging/redirecting/deletion based on this rule alone, somewhat defeating the purpose of drawing a line. And now for the big treat:'' LOST-Malachi (talk) 07:46, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

6. If a subject only appears in a visual source in a single crowd shot or in the background and plays no role in the narrative, then it should not be given a separate article. 7. If a subject only appears in a single illustration in a visual source, with no context or other information provided, it should not be given a separate article.
 * Comic book artists, video game designers and animators of TV series use background characters to establish required setting and atmosphere for various locations. However, most of the time these characters are not mentioned in the script and play absolutely no role in the story. Such characters are also almost never revisited in later sources and depending on design may even be indistinguishable from other characters of the same species. Having separate pages for every background character in every visual source ever published would clog the Wookieepedia with thousands of minor articles that would give no information to the reader.
 * A notable departure from this rule concerns the live-action movie characters, which should always be given a separate article as long as they can be distinguished from others (such as identical-looking clone or stormtroopers). Movie crowd scenes with multiple background extras such as Chalmun's Spaceport Cantina or Jabba's Palace have been the subject of scrutiny by both fans and licensed authors for years, with many minor characters receiving names and biographical details decades after their first appearance. A crowd scene in a single comic panel will never generate the same level of interest, however, and the individuals depicted are unlikely to ever be revisited, so all information on them would come from a single picture, making a full article redundant.
 * Sources such as roleplaying sourcebooks and card games often feature illustrations which are not meant to represent any character in particular, but rather members of specific species, organizations or game classes. Unless a caption tells us more, little specific information can be gained from a single picture: the allegiances, circumstances and even time periods of the events and characters depicted can only be gained from assumptions and speculations. Additionally, an article is of no use to the reader if it simply describes what is depicted on the illustration and nothing more.
 * When linking to such objects from other articles, it is best to link to an image directly rather than linking to a new separate article which merely describes the same image, essentially being an overblown caption.

Support Rules 1 through 7

 * 1) LOST-Malachi (talk) 07:46, August 17, 2013 (UTC)