This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Support both proposals.
The proposals in this CT intend to repeal parts of and build upon/clarify this CT which amended the notability policy back in 2015.
Arguments for these new changes will be broken down at length below, but if you want to see a direct comparison between the current policy and a new version that I drafted up, see here. For an earlier discussion of this CT in a Senate Hall thread, see here.
Back in 2015, the notability policy was modified to require future products to have a title in order to necessitate an article. This was intended to mitigate a situation where a dozen or more book listings briefly appeared on Edelweiss with no content other than a release date and placeholder title, and then were subsequently canceled, leaving us with a dozen small articles with little to no information.
As an unintended consequence of this amendment, untitled products that are quite notable are being pushed to the wayside. In fact, we've even broken this policy rule many times in the years since. Currently, Untitled Ubisoft project breaks the policy rule. Additionally, when wave 2 of The High Republicwas revealed back in October 2020, none of the books had titles either, yet we created pages for them anyway.
In the years since 2015, Edelweiss and other online listing sites directly maintained by publishers have changed. We no longer see titles revealed a year and a half in advance. As a result, most products that are listed end up getting released. Out of around 100 Star Wars books listed on Edelweiss in the past year, few have been canceled. Of those few, they all have more information available than just a placeholder title and ISBN.
As it stands now, the policy also limits what canceled products necessitate a page. Again, it requires the project to have a title. This severely hinders the scope of our coverage. For example, Project Ragtag was canceled and remained untitled for a long time before its codename was revealed. But we kept the page anyway because there was substantive information about the project out there. If we took the current policy literally back then, the Ragtag article would have been deleted long ago because there was no official title.
Modify the requirements to create a future product article via this rewrite.
Allow articles on untitled future products to be created, but maintain the rule that they have to be confirmed by an official source.
Clearly define what an "official source" is when it comes to online listing sites. Listings on sites like Edelweiss+ and Penguin Random House are directly created and actively maintained by Star Wars publishers and have information that is often more accurate and up to date than press releases or StarWars.com announcements. Sites like Amazon may have listings from third-party sellers and should be approached with caution.
Modify the requirements to create a canceled product article via this rewrite.
Follow all the same requirements regarding confirmation by an official source.
Clarify that if there is no substantive information about the canceled product other than a release date or ISBN, it should instead be documented on a relevant pre-existing article (like the publisher's page) rather than have its own article.
Clarify what constitutes an "authorial comment."
Vote 1: Future products
As nominator. Dentface (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)