Wookieepedia

READ MORE

Wookieepedia
Register
Wookieepedia
No edit summary
Line 22: Line 22:
 
#Heh. I was just contemplating a CT on removing this when I first woke up 30 minutes ago. I'll decide whether the second point needs addressing later. [[User:Cade Calrayn|<span style="font-weight: bold; color:#000999;">Cade</span>]] [[File:StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg|18px]] [[User talk:Cade Calrayn|<span style="font-weight: bold; color:#000999;">Calrayn</span>]] 14:03, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 
#Heh. I was just contemplating a CT on removing this when I first woke up 30 minutes ago. I'll decide whether the second point needs addressing later. [[User:Cade Calrayn|<span style="font-weight: bold; color:#000999;">Cade</span>]] [[File:StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg|18px]] [[User talk:Cade Calrayn|<span style="font-weight: bold; color:#000999;">Calrayn</span>]] 14:03, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 
#Agreed, although the Google test is good for fanon, a lot of conjectural articles probably haven't had a chance to get disseminated out past here yet. [[User:Corellian Premier|<span style="color:black">'''Corellian Premier'''</span>]][[File:Jedi symbol.svg|20px]]<sup>[[User talk:Corellian Premier|<span style="color:green">The Force will be with you always</span>]]</sup> 14:41, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
 
#Agreed, although the Google test is good for fanon, a lot of conjectural articles probably haven't had a chance to get disseminated out past here yet. [[User:Corellian Premier|<span style="color:black">'''Corellian Premier'''</span>]][[File:Jedi symbol.svg|20px]]<sup>[[User talk:Corellian Premier|<span style="color:green">The Force will be with you always</span>]]</sup> 14:41, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
  +
#Per Cade. I'll consider the other part at another time.&mdash;[[User:Cal Jedi|<span style="color:black">'''Cal Jedi'''</span>]][[File:Infinite Empire.svg|8px]] <sup>([[User Talk:Cal Jedi|Personal Comm Channel]])</sup> 14:54, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
   
 
==Support removing only the second bullet point==
 
==Support removing only the second bullet point==

Revision as of 14:54, 26 August 2013

Forums > Consensus track > CT:Remove "Notability requirements" section from Deletion Policy

As has been pointed out in recent discussions, Wookieepedia:Deletion policy currently only has two bullet points under the "Notability requirements" header. The first is:

  • Notability of an article is determined via the Google test. Articles failing this test (usually fanon) are deleted.

This standard was created in the earliest days of the Wook, when there was more information on Star Wars elsewhere on the Internet than on our site. Clearly, those days are long since past, and there are countless articles on Wookieepedia and its mirrors that are the sole sources of information on their topics available on the internet. This is not even counting our many conjecturally-titled articles, which describe unnamed but nonetheless canon topics using, by necessity, titles that are non-canon. The Google Test hasn't been used as a criterion for article deletion for half a decade or more, and it is high time it be removed from our policies, especially since, as shown in the abovelinked discussions, it's being used to hold clearly-canonical material hostage.

The second bullet point is narrowly focused on fan articles:

This bullet point simply restates that fan articles must adhere to other policies already detailed elsewhere on the site. It's redundant, and if the obsolete Google Test bullet point is removed, it would be confusing standing on its own as the sole element discussing notability in our deletion policy.

I propose removing the entire "Notability requirements" section. If need be, it can be recreated at a future time if other notability criteria are adopted, but for right now, it is performing no useful function, and the only unique part of it is serving as a bad-faith lever in site discussions. That said, for completeness, I am also adding options should users feel one or the other of the above bullet points should be retained. jSarek (talk) 08:21, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support removing entire section

  1. As nominator. jSarek (talk) 08:21, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Makes sense. Trip391 (talk) 08:37, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
  3. The google test has become useless, as simply put we are the most complete Star Wars encyclopedia, period. As stated above, what other sites would use the same conjectural names as we do. Supreme Emperor (talk) 10:13, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
  4. You beat me to it, jSarek.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 14:24, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support removing only the first bullet point

  1. The Google test is not an actively used policy, and would be actively harmful if enforced now. Reminding users of the second bullet point may be of value, so it might as well be kept in the policy. I am 100% convinced Wookieepedia needs some sort of notability standard for in-Universe articles, but the Google test is not it. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Heh. I was just contemplating a CT on removing this when I first woke up 30 minutes ago. I'll decide whether the second point needs addressing later. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 14:03, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Agreed, although the Google test is good for fanon, a lot of conjectural articles probably haven't had a chance to get disseminated out past here yet. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 14:41, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Per Cade. I'll consider the other part at another time.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 14:54, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support removing only the second bullet point

Oppose removing any of it

  1. No-no-no. We need more Notability requirements rules, not less. No fanon seems to be evident and universally accepted. Fan projects are also clearly defined after several itterations, so far so good. Now, merchandise stuff seems to be exported to merchandise wiki on a pretty much case by case basis, I'd like so see clearly writtem rules on which stuff stays and which goes. The other subjects you already know my opinion on. Oh, and articles in question are neither held hostage nor clearly-canonical. My notability suggestions may have failed already, but as of this writing they have 42-46% support of all voters. No majority and not even 50/50 split, but their notabiltiy is clearly debated. LOST-Malachi (talk) 08:59, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. I don't like the idea of stripping down our notability rules to nothing and then forever continuing with our garbage case-by-case basis that inconsistently sees lightsabers kept one week and deleted the next. Yes, the google test is outdated, but we should be replacing our notability rules with something better, not just plain getting rid of them. Menkooroo (talk) 11:22, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The whole deletion policy may need rewriting anyway, with or without a successful notability policy CT. It should expand on the use of {{verify}} and the similar {{Notability}} for fan topics, point to the image use policy for media deletion, and maybe even say a little about user page deletion and subpage deletion. But that can wait. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)