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.

Discussion
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)
 * I for one am all for a notability policy and made an attempt at gathering ideas a while back. I'd support most of the rules in your draft but would perhaps need to think more about rules five and six, given that both would lead to the deletion of status articles. The fact that some one has been willing to take the time to write up and nominate such articles suggests to me they're seen as important enough to keep. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:13, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * It would and that was the intention. An article like Unidentified Sullustan (shirt) may pass internal quality requirements, but it's still useless as hell to the readers. All it does is saying "Look, here's a picture and let's describe what is depicted on the picture in text for double redundancy!". Imagine if this has been prose and not visual source: "This dude wore a shirt at one point in his life." That's not information, it tells nothing to anyone who can just look at the picture instead. Jean-Luc Picard was once a status article too and took time to get it there, but it was deleted for a good reason also. LOST-Malachi (talk) 04:01, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with getting rid of "useless" articles is that everyone has a different idea about what is useless. What some people find pointless, others may enjoy reading. Supreme Emperor (talk) 04:11, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would like to talk about "useless" articles, the TOR vendor articles could be called useless, as the only thing unique about the character is their name, and the articles only tell information that can be seen by looking at the character. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  04:16, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting it, that's why I asked for opinions. I still fail to see as to why a self-evident article would be an interesting read to anyone, when there's barely enough context for a short caption under the picture. If you could please enlighten me, I'd like to know that reason. Also, named characters have been consistently okay for not just this, but any online encyclopedia, because a fan encountering that name might google it, or search it on a wiki directly. Nobody would just go and type Unidentified Sullustan (shirt) in search box though, ever. That article is also orphaned, not linked through any main namespace page. A reader-not-editor of Wookieepedia has very little chance to find it and even smaller chance to find it useful. Oh, and it (like most other such articles with no written info) contains speculation because SWGTCG was never confined to Rebellion era in the first place (Trust me, that I know).
 * There are also things like Koros dove. Just look at it: full of speculation (calling a white triangle both a dove and a bird based on... what?) based on the super-tiny background fragment of one single comic panel. Even if there is one day an Essential Guide to Avian species of Koros Major naming 150+ different avians of the planet with a full-body picture next to text, it'll be impossible to identify this minuscule picture with any of them - there just isn't enough detail, the artists didn't even bother to draw it properly. It may already be the same as Unidentified avian species or Kirrek dove - there's just no way to know. The image tells next to nothing, there are no written sources and it's so minor, it's unlikely it'll ever be revisited, not that anyone in LFL would take a note of thing like that in a first place. "There were some birds living on the planet" isn't informative at all to reader of that particular article. Mention that fact on Koros Major, but don't make a separate page that is 100% redundant. LOST-Malachi (talk) 04:55, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your policy, I find it is very well written. I'm wondering though, do you find there are a lot of "junk" articles in Wookieepedia, such as "a rock R2-D2 hid behind?" I looked at the Unidentified Sullustan (shirt) you used as an example. The thing with that article is that the card itself is called "Lucky Shirt." So the article is not about a random picture of some guy wearing a shirt, but an actual shirt that is (supposedly) special. Are there any other examples of "junk" articles you can point to? Also, as for your "English words" section, I was a little confused by the example of Bounty Hunter, since they seem to be similar. To Ayrehead02: Which articles would rules five and six affect and lead to the deletion of status articles?-- Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 04:23, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Examples of junk articles: Arkanian baton (definitely a Stun baton, but because it is used by one Arkanian on Arkania once, must be totally different thing!), Mounted beasts (contains speculation, groups together several different things, is based solely on a single background appearance), Aehrrley Rue's species (it could be anything inside that armor, Bane Malar is the same case and a kriffing FA, but doesn't bother with Bane Malar's species nonsense). Unidentified lucky shirt wouldn't be much better, it's just a unique name of a card for gameplay purposes and not necessarily unique item. There is a card called "Han Solo's blaster", which is far more prominently featured, yet even then the Wook doesn't have Han Solo's Modified Blastech DL-44 per se. Real world bounty hunters operate strictly under US law in certain states, while in Star Wars a bounty can be put on anyone by anybody: governments, crime lords and random individuals can post bounties on whoever they want as long as they got money.
 * Rule 5 is deliberately worded against articles like that Sullustan in a shirt and Unidentified scout trooper (Gran Jedi). Remember, it's an RPG illustration for visual reference purposes: it may depict player-created characters or an event that did not occur in a canonical outcome of a scenario (think Dark Side option in KOTOR). We know nothing about the individuals, the circumstances of the event, even the era is pretty much guesswork. It's not an encyclopedic article, it's overblown caption for one illustration. Rule 6 is aimed for things like Unidentified Gotal patron (Twirling Twi'lek) and his friend. Seriously, an article for every background off-focus extra in a crowd shot of every published comic ever? That's thousands upon thousands of articles, all absolutely uninformative and useless to readers, because unlike Chalmun's Spaceport Cantina those extras aren't interesting to anyone and won't be revisited in years to come. LOST-Malachi (talk) 08:53, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and look at what beauty I just found: Unidentified imperial trooper (battle of the valiant). An article on a generic, random, nameless, faceless video game NPC with no distonguishable features whatsoever. Canonical? Hell yes! Notable? Let me just say that even Cade's super-thorough awesome project does not include this guy. There's nothing really to say about him or tens of thousands (literally) NPCs that we slay while playing video games. And yet there is nothing in the current rules preventing that article from existing, either. I'm just trying to understand if people really want hundreds and thousands of stormtroopers from Dark Forces, Force Unleashed, Battlefront etc. to have individual articles or to have at least some sort of rules to weed that stuff out. LOST-Malachi (talk) 11:04, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I really like what you've done here, Mauser. Sentences like "Additionally, an article is of no use to the reader if it simply describes what is depicted on the illustration and nothing more." are especially true --- there are dozens of these articles that seem to have been created just so that users could write more Comprehensive articles. Unidentified Herglic (chop shop), Unidentified Codru-Ji Jedi, and even my own Unidentified H'nemthe patron, I'm looking at you. I also like that you've explicitly distinguished between background film characters and background comic/video game characters. I would fully support this policy. I just have one question, though: Some alien species that don't appear very often in canon should necessarily mention their various nameless background characters in order to be FA'd or GA'd (for example, Lamproid mentions Unidentified Lamproid (Tyro Viveca's trophy); H'nemthe mentions Unidentified H'nemthe patron). If their species article mentions them in order to be comprehensive, do you think they should get an article? Menkooroo (talk) 11:42, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no problem here at all. The main article can still list the random tiny bits of information about individuals in general without a need to link for a minor useless article based on background appearance. Take Sanyassan for example. It links to Unidentified Sanyassan prison warden (definitely notable) and Unidentified bald Sanyassan assailant (ewww, not really notable). However, it contains no links whatsoever to Unidentified eyepatched Sanyassan (live action + distinct appearance = notable) or Unidentified Sanyassan (lineup) (REALLY? a sourcebook lineup illustration made to demonstrates height difference between species is being treated as an IU event?) and manages to do completely fine. Also, I am pretty sure that Swokes Swokes article that links to minor useless articles like Unidentified Swokes Swokes bartender and Unidentified Swokes Swokes victim does NOT link to every single minor extra from Scourge (novel), which contains a lot of nameless Swokes Swokes in its early chapters. Doesn't hurt it one bit though. LOST-Malachi (talk) 12:40, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * In my defence, I created the articles on the bald Sanyassan assailant and his friend because I was specifically asked to for the FAN of the Sanyassan article. It seems that at least one person, in this instance SavageBob, thought there was indeed "enough information to distinguish them as unique individuals." In the end of the day, it all comes down to what you mean by "enough information." In the case of the two assailants, these guys are actually doing something of interest, that is attacking a Star Tours speeder&mdash;which also has the merit o showing there were still Sanyassan on Endor at that point. However, I wholeheartedly agree with you, Mauser, when it comes down to articles like the lineup Sanyassan.--LelalMekha (talk) 13:10, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right. I'd support the vast majority of this proposed policy, but not the bits that would kill these kinds of articles. These are unique individuals in the Star Wars galaxy, so I have no problem with them being here. But maybe that's why it might be a good idea to vote on this policy line by line, rather than whole hog. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 14:06, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * That the Sanyassans attacked the Star Tours speeder is a good point, but I don't know if it makes either of them notable characters, per se. The information about the Sanyassans still being on Endor and attacking the speeder is definitely important information, but I feel like it might have a better home in the Sanyassan article. Anyway, you're right that there's a stronger case for them than there is for, say, Unidentified Kel Dor Sith Lord. The Sanyassans actually tell us something important about a particular time period, but the Kel Dor tells us nothing beyond what's in the picture. I'd definitely support a policy that killed the Kel Dor Sith Lord and all of the lineup aliens. Menkooroo (talk) 14:52, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * On those Sanyassans: I thought the information on them has come from a caption, but I just checked the source and the image doesn't have caption whatsoever. Which makes practically everything in the article OR/speculation: What makes you think it's New Republic era? What makes you think it's Endor? Could be any other world in the Modell sector or even the galaxy. What makes you think the StarSpeeder 3000 belonged to Star Tours? WThat very article has an example of them being operated by someone else. Finally, what makes you think they were attacking it? One of them holds what appears to be a blaster (though we don't even see that, the other reveals what might be bombs strapped to his chest. Call me nit-picky, but it doesn't pass my duck test, I am definitely now sure of what I am seeing. These are arguments not for FAN/GAN/CAN, but for TC altogether - and this is part of the reason I dislike such articles so much. If it had at least a caption that would provide some additional info it could pass Rule 5 of my list, but as it is, it just does not. LOST-Malachi (talk) 15:19, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * That "battle of the valiant" article is the work of an anon who is notorious for making those kind of lazy articles, and I'd agree that there is no need for them. Same goes for many of the species articles created by Dantescifi. But in general, this policy is too hard on perfectly acceptable unidentified articles that often have more information than articles on named characters. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  14:11, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is some information in the article other than that from the picture itself, I believe it may get a pass. A caption explaining what's going on, background info on the subject if it exists elsewhere, creator comments or character lines if any - that's all good and informative. But an article based on a single context-free illustration is self-evident and redundant. If you want to take rules 5 and 6 out, nothing will remain to make the policy work, things will simply continue at is.
 * Speaking of which, I always knew that there won't be consensus on unidentified stuff, but what about the Earth items? Forks, spoons, rope - do you want things like that gone (turned into disambigs) or let them stay? LOST-Malachi (talk) 15:19, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fought this battle before. Problem is that people will say it needs to be kept if it's different from Real-world items and when you point out that it's not different, then they revert to the argument that the fact that the SW Universe uses something just like the real-world is notable. It's a hard battle. <- Omicron (Leave a message at the BEEP! ) 15:29, August 14, 2013 (UTC)