Forum:SH Archive/Notability policy draft

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 conciously 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 (excluduing 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) 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.
 * 10) * 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) * 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 indistiquishable 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.
 * 13) ** 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 distinquished 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 licenced 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.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) * 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 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.

English words
If a word holds the same meaning in Star Wars galaxy as in general English language, generally there is no need for a separate article. Notable exceptions that would allow for their own articles include:


 * 1) If a word is used to define something different in Star Wars galaxy than in real world. Bounty Hunter is not the same as Bounty Hunter, Cantina is not the same as Cantina, Spice is not the same as Spice.
 * 2) * A good rule of thumb is whether the word gains a different, easily recognizable meaning when used within the Star Wars context. Military ranks (captain, general, sergeant), technology (computer, hologram, jetpack) and astronomic terms (asteroid, planet, galaxy) are all obviously qualifying examples. On the other hand, words such as wheel, torch or lubricant have exactly the same meaning when used in context of Star Wars or outside of it. Such terms require no separate articles, as they would be telling nothing new to a reader.
 * 3) If a word has clear Earth origins or otherwise defines a term one would not associate with Star Wars, but is nevertheless canonical. Books, Paper and Glasses are rarely depicted in Star Wars media and are generally not expected to be found in them, yet are canonical.
 * 4) * A rule of thumb is whether an article on an otherwise generic Earthly term would provide new information to the reader. The article of paper may provide interesting and unusual examples because of its rarity in Star Wars. More generic items like bunk, bulkhead or barrel, however, are commonly found in both visual and non-visual Star Wars media and rarely draw special attention to themselves. An article on item such as bag would be telling only what a bag is, something a reader of text in English already knows.
 * 5) While a full article on a generic English word will not be appropriate, a page under its title might still exist, functioning as a disambiguation page between similarly named Star Wars concepts. See fish, stone and bridge for a proper way to use commong English words in the main namespace.
 * 6) * When a word refers to a specific unique subject within Star Wars, the canonical page title should have precedence over the disambiguation page in namespace. See Lock, Switch and Abyss for examples.

I would like to hear the community's answer to three questions:
 * 1) Do you think this wiki needs a notablity policy at all? Or should it instead have articles on everything, and I mean everything? In which case Unidentified stormtrooper (third left, second row) (Emperor's arrival on Death Star II), Unidentified Tatooine rock R2-D2 hid behind in 0 BBY and Unidentified lightsaber (Unidentified Jedi) (Unidentified planet)
 * 2) What do you think of IU notablity rules? Any comments, changes, additions, objections?
 * 3) What do you think of English notablity rules? Any comments, changes, additions, objections?

This wiki is still absolutely the most detailed and professional wiki out there, but in my opinion the presense of multiple junk articles presenting zero useful information hurts it a lot. If even some of those rules were adopted, a great clean-up of mess could begin. I won't even object to taking only one of two sections to the voting commitee if it helps slide past some controversial rules. LOST-Malachi (talk) 12:15, August 13, 2013 (UTC)