Forum:CT Archive/Drawing the line: IU vs OOU

Where do we draw the line on whether something deserves an article or not? Certainly we don't have an article on words like The or Oh (thanks, Fourdot), but why not? Because these are not specific to aurebesh, but existes in the real world as well? But by that same token, why do we have an article on ducks and Humans, then? Neither are specific to Star Wars, and we cannot prove that they have any inherent qualities that set them apart from their real-life counterparts. Cantinas, starships, aliens, none are SW-specific, but have their own articles because they hold significance IU and in the collective fan consciousness. It is common sense, you say. And I agree, but where do we draw the line?

I would make a Poll for you to vote on, but I don't have any suggestions to give you. DarthMRN 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I say we draw the line at what a realistic encyclopedia would stop at. Which would include minor non-existent things. We're not a dictionary, so The and Oh are bad examples, but by the same token, Nostril of Palpatine is a textbook example of what we should not, under any circumstance, have. .  .  .  .  12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is too vague for a policy. AFAIK, the creator of an encyclopedia sets the limit, and there are far too many of us for that. It would mean voting over every stub we have. And obviously, we cannot follow the example set by Wikipedia, or we might as well shut down completely. DarthMRN 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline I've been keeping in my head is that if an IU subject would probably have an article in the Star Wars galaxy's Wikipedia, and its content would be expected to be substantially different from a real-world encyclopedia article, it's fine. So Duck gets an article because its article mentions Naboo and four-winged variants, Denhui-Eight gets an article because it's an entire inhabited planet (even though we only have a couple of sentences worth of info), Bimkall Sector is admittedly a borderline case because they might have VFD'd it on the HoloNet's wikis, but  some marginal articles which describe something which exists in Star Wars pretty much exactly as it does in the real world (like Love) isn't needed. Now everyone please tell me the giant holes in my half-baked reasoning. 8) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I love it. You put into words what I was struggling to reconcile with my mostly-hyperinclusionist doctrine :) I'll set us up the vote. (Hey, that works grammatically! How 'bout that?) This is very much needed, as Breast illustrates.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The SillyDan Test
"The guideline I've been keeping in my head is that if an IU subject would probably have an article in the Star Wars galaxy's Wikipedia, and its content would be expected to be substantially different from a real-world encyclopedia article, it's fine. So Duck gets an article because its article mentions Naboo and four-winged variants, Denhui-Eight gets an article because it's an entire inhabited planet (even though we only have a couple of sentences worth of info), Bimkall Sector is admittedly a borderline case because they might have VFD'd it on the HoloNet's wikis, but some marginal articles which describe something which exists in Star Wars pretty much exactly as it does in the real world (like Love) aren't needed."

Support

 * 1)  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) That sounds good. So, no anatomy unless it's dramatically different? Chack Jadson 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) *Seems that way to me. Though I hate to deprive so many users of the only action they'll ever get. (KIDDING!)  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)