Forum:CT Archive/"If it an item does not exist, then there is no article!"

Ick. Allow me to throw up, please.

Sorry. I just had to get that out of my system. I saw the Bobo article. Wait...what's that you say? Article? We have an article on an alias? That's right kids. An Encyclopedia article on an alias. Lemme tell you can stick your alias articles. On the aliasee's article. In a peripheral section. I must sound like a broken record. It's not encyclopedic to have an article on something that does not exsist. That's not to say that we can't cover the topic, it's just to say that these kind of things should, by all means, be put in the peripheral section of another article. I know that many of you have an attatchment to Nostril of Palpatine, but let's toe the line somewhere, people. That belongs in a section of the Superweapon article.

Exceptions would be elaborate hoaxes and things that really do exsist, but Saxton decided that he didn't feel like having them fit into his bizzaro semi-realistic fantasy world of ILM models. But, for god's sake, it's not an article unless you can make an article out of it. If the Lando Calrissian walks into a bar and gives his name as Sylvester Sheckshingall, that doesn't mean that we should have an article on it. If Palpatine starts spouting out hypothetical names for the Death Star, that doesn't warrant an article either. Otherwise, where's the Katarn's beard, or Freaking Sweet Hat articles? They're red. Bobo, Bimkall Sector (yeah, I'm targeting errors too...relegate that to the HNN article), should be too.

Gods, deities, and worshipped thingamagigs are exempted.

For

 * 1) .  .  .  .  00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Imp http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Chack Jadson 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Green Tentacle (Talk) 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Follow something like the Jaina Solo article. 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Xwing. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Is this really rocket science? tzzA 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  Stake black   msg 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) I don't care for the hypothetical Nostril of Palps having an article.  Was thinking about that earlier today.  -Fnlayson 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Ja -- Titan Talk to me, damn it! 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Definitely for merging them. - JMAS 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For, and you spelled "exist" wrong. Sikon 10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are we even having a vote for this? Common sense, people. -- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 22:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Sikon. =) CooperTFN 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Against

 * Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 01:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Broox 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Hydronium 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) It doesn't hut anything. But, and I say this boldly to make it clear to anyone who would otherwise skip this, FOR THE LOVE OF KATARN DON'T PUT THEM IN CATEGORIES! If someone says he's smuggler Hugo Bobbles, then don't put Hugo Bobbles in Category:Smugglers. Hugo Bobbles is not a smuggler. He's not real. He can't be. Havac 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *If they do stay, a category for non-existent items would probably be a good idea. IU fiction and the aliases category can be subcategorized into it. - Lord Hydronium 08:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) **Well, aliases have their own category. What we really need is a category for non-canon and ambig-canon material. Havac 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Borsk Fey&#39;lya 07:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Against. However, they should be soft redirects, only providing the minimal information necessary to identify their users and the circumstances of their use.  Thus, Jan Strange should look like it does, and not include the information about her that is in the Jan Ors article. jSarek 08:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) If something exists as a concept in the SW universe - such as aliases, nicknames, hypothetical superweapons, "Bimkall Sectors", deities, philosophical ideas - then it should have its own article, because even though it's not physically tangible (in the universe), it still exists as a concept in the universe - much like God, "Deep Throat" (the Watergate alias!), Saddam's nuclear weapons, and the boogey man, which don't really exist in our world, but still are important concepts. Katarn's beard and the freakin' sweet hat are not really detachable from their owners, so that's not really the same, is it? KEJ 09:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) *The Bimkall Sector isn't really anything. So it's even worse. And how much can you write on God, Deep Throat (not the film), and Sadam's Weapons? Let me answer that. A lot. So much so, that you could actually write articles on them.  .  .  .  .  09:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) **Sure, and the same thing applies to the "non-existing" concepts of Star Wars. The articles might be short (but, hey, there are a lot of really short articles on "existing" things, too), but in an IU-perspective these concepts may have the same status as God, "Deep Throat" (no, still not the film), Saddam's weapons, and the boogey man. KEJ 09:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) ***You're still not getting me. Three sentences is not an article. And error does not constitute an article. An alias used by one person that has not been fleshed out as a character alter ego does not constitute an article. The most if will ever amount to is a footnote, which is what it should be. I'm not a religious man, but I find your comparison between Bimkall and God sickening, even if it is across OOU and IU. One is an error in a fictional database. One is something that has been revered by cultures all over the world for thousands of years. But say I was an IU character. And as a joke, I start worshipping a fictional duck. Holy crap! We need an article on Duckus! Actually, no we don't. Because someone IU just pulled it out of their arse. Deep Throat was heavily tied into a major, national, American Scandal, and has since entered into the English lexicon with a vengance. When Cade says "Oh, that thing is such a Nostril of Palpatine", then I'll listen to arguements for the article. Saddam's weapons were a scapegoat for the most powerful government in the world, which in turn caused other sheep to follow that government into war. Massive scandal. So much to write. What can you say about Jan Strange? Oh, erm, Jan Ors used it so she wouldn't get pwned. Oh, and that's a retcon, ladies and gentlemen. .  .  .  .  10:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) ****I'm not a religious man, but I find your comparison between Bimkall and God sickening, even if it is across OOU and IU. Well, that's your (mis)interpretation. My intention was to draw a parallel between IU "deities" and the RL deities such as the one that a lot of people worship and refer to as "God". KEJ 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) *****Remind me, which "God" articles am I out to merge or delete? As far as I can recall, I actually wrote two articles for "Gods" .  .  .  .  10:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) ******It was not a reference to any of your articles or anything else relating to you specifically, but a reference to IU deities in general and parallels to RL deities, such as the Christian God. That's all. KEJ 10:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) *******OK, I gotcha, but I still don't  see how that relates to this discussion.  .  .  .  .  10:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) ********It does relate to the topic you set, which I believe is not saying what you really wanted it to say. Charlii 10:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) *********Indeed, it relates to the topic. Deities, both RL and IU, are or can be argued to be, non-existent concepts. If the suggested rule, in its strictest sense, is implemented, then articles on deities should be deleted (along with aliases, ideas, and other "nont-existent" concepts) even though deities are known to be of importance to those who believe in them. KEJ 11:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Against- When someone uses an alias for a particlar situation and then another for a different situation, it's nice to be able to have a short article on the use of that single alias. If I want to know when Mara Jade used the alias Senni Kiffu and when she used the alias Claria, those articles themselves tell me a lot easier than searching her gigantic biography for them. And while the character of Claria did not exist in the SW galaxy, the alias did and served a purpose, deserving an article. Wildyoda 19:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) *You do realise that all you would have to do to find Mara's aliases would be to click "Known Aliases" under the TOC just under the intro... .  .  .  .  22:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Against – Some aliases are notbale enough to have their own article. [[Image:DarthAb.gif|Jasca Ducato]] Sith Council Sith Campaign 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Muuuuuurgh 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Against - Dare I remind everybody why this place exists? Because Wikipedia considers certain things insignificant enough to merge. I am apalled to see such a stong voting for what is essentially an u-turn back towards zero. If it's got a name, and sometimes even when it doesn't, then it should have its own separate article. Merges are for two accidental articles written on the same subject. Apalled, I tell you. DarthMRN 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Still, I suppose it's like Alan Smithee... .  .  .  .  02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC) OK, For or Against what exactly? Is it For or Against merging articles that are aliases/nicknames into the article of the person that used that alias? - JMAS 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Why not create an "Aliases" header for the char bios? --School of Thrawn 101 09:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that errors, such as misspellings should not be their own article but should instead redirect to the correct spelling. The Broox 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bimkall Sector? .  .  .  .  01:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they are or are deleted. Articles have been made to redirect to the proper article for alternate spellings and such.  -Fnlayson 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply put, we're either the biggest Star Wars online encyclopedia or&mdash;or we're not, so either be for it or&mdash;or don't be (It's late in California). -- SFH 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Get some sleep. Plus, if we want to get bigger and bigger, we can just make Unnamed Coruscant Building 1 and be perfectly legit. .  .  .  .  01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to merge any aliases that are synonymous with particular characters or things (so Bobo redirects to Palpatine, etc.), but keeping separate articles on aliases used by more than one person (Jenos Idanian is the only example I can think of) and in-universe fictional characters (like Baltharog of Quest for Quasar) should be easily defensible, even to non-hyperinclusionists. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for fictional characters IU. But aliases used by more than one person can be noted on each person's respective page. Or not. I'd let the fictional characters slip, but the aliases, even when used by a variety of people, is pretty shaky.
 * It just seems to me, in the Jenos Idanian case, that it should at least be left as a disambiguation page in case someone who's read I, Jedi but not the Han Solo novels wants to know who the real Idanian was. (Can we apply the same logic to Bimkall Sector or Nostril of Palpatine?  You're going to say no, I can tell already.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disambig for Idania. No way for Nostril of Palpatine and Bimkall. .  .  .  .  03:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For merging them. .  .  .  .  02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't redirect Bimkall Sector simply because HNN karked up. It is a legitimate in-universe reference. --  Riffsyphon  1024 04:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But...it does not exsist. They karked up IU. Leftenant, please. .  .  .  .  04:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, just a question. Should Lord Nyax redirect to Irek Ismaren? Charlii 08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because it's fully fledged IU fiction. .  .  .  .  08:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, Lord Nyax was an IU 'boogie man' before Irek took the name. -Fnlayson 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying. .  .  .  .  09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I'm with you, then. --School of Thrawn 101 10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is just hyperinclusionist fanwankery, but everything that "exists" as a notable entity or concept should be documented in Wookieepedia, and preferably in its own article, or alternatively in a subsection in an article on the topic that it is the most relevant to - from aliases over fictive characters to hypotheses and theories. KEJ 09:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, for the love of TBT, a subsection of the parent article! .  .  .  .  10:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes perfect sense. Why it should require this much debate is beyond me.  Let's vote on this and move on. --School of Thrawn 101 10:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This may be a dumb idea, but we could possibly make a list of some of the aliases used, for example the slang list. And aliases used by multiple people can have their own article.  Darth Sarge Converse with me! 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See List of aliases- which I may point out is a silly page to have if there aren't articles on all of those listed. It basically works as a disambig page. Wildyoda 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess I should have looked for that... Darth Sarge Converse with me! 07:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can conceive of some hypothetical...thing...existing somewhere or someday that's important enough to warrant an article - Alan Smithee is a good RL example - but until I've seen such a...thing...Bobo and the Nostril won't cut it. Maybe if Jenos Idanian makes a couple more appearances. CooperTFN 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Bimkall Sector (thought to exist by HoloNet News for about a month) and Jenos Idanian (used as an alias by two different people, and apparently thought by CorSec to be a real person separate from Han Solo for years) qualify, but any less notable alias should be merged. (Note that this thread has no consensus, but Talk:Bimkall Sector is mostly against merging, and Talk:Bobo might have led to a separate decision to merge if not for this thread.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)