Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars ship names
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star Wars ship names
- Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This list is redundant and a nonsense collection of names. If it provided information on all the named ships, I'd consider it a cruft dam. But it's just a list of names. — Deckiller 19:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Indiscriminate list. This is a recording: "Fancruft. We're not Wookieepedia." --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Feedyourfeet 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CSD#A3 Ste4k 22:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The Wookieepedian 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete should be on Wookieepedia. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just an indiscriminate list of names. BryanG(talk) 02:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Can be covered adequately on class pages, although most of these are legit. It's already at Wookieepedia. -LtNOWIS 07:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete List cruft. Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia. Indiscriminate list of imaginary information. -- GWO
- Keep Hey, all, I'm RelentlessRouge. I spent a lot of time creating this list, and don't see why this list should be deleted. Why do all Star Wars articles seem to go the Wookieepedia? Because all of your invariably have more experience than me, please inform me at my talk page in my signiature about why it should be deleted. In response to Deckill's comment, if necessary, I will add a line or two for every ship. Thanks, RelentlessRouge 11:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Move to List of Star Wars ships and Expand. --maru (talk) contribs 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep!!! This list is very contributive to the Star Wars legacy; Mike, this thing is so famous. Have you ever even SEEN star wars? the ships are the most crucial part. This should NOT be on Wookiepedia, because there are HUNDREDS MORE STAR WARS ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA. Are you going to go around and delete every page that is involved with Star Wars, Star Trek, StarCraft, and Harry Potter? just checking, because that's what you'd need to do if you delete this page because it should be on wookiepedia. Tell them to put "lightsaber" on wookiepedia. Whats more, this is a list, and it contains items that contributed to the fame of Star Wars, namely, the Millenium Falcon, the X-wings, the TIE Fighters, the Star Destroyers. Are you denying that Star Wars wouldn't be what it is without them? Think about it. You're wrong in the end.Craigtheomnipotent
- First, as pointed out in the initial nomination, WP:NOT's policy indicates it's the notability of the list itself that comprises whether it stays on Wikipedia — not the individual items that make up the list. The example the policy itself cites is Nixon's list of enemies — in this example, the list itself is famous, and thus the article is kept on the notability of the list itself, not necessarily on the notability of those individuals comprising the list. Second, the rest of your argument seems predicated on an argument that I'm going to nominate all articles relating to Star Wars, Star Trek, StarCraft and Harry Potter for deletion, which I do not intend to do. Third, an article must conform to Wikipedia's content guidelines even if it relates to a popular subject. Fourth, note that the Millennium Falcon, the X-Wing, multiple TIE fighter models ([1]), and Star Destroyers each have their own Wikipedia articles, and so are very well covered on Wikipedia. Finally, please stay calm in your future interactions with your fellow editors, Craig. It not only makes Wikipedia a nicer place to work, it makes your opinion more persuasive. Thanks. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, Mike, that you have already stated your intent to put this article on Wookiepedia. If you think it belongs there, that indicates that Wookiepedia would take it without question, and since their rules are the same as Wikipedia, it could stay right here without problems. Moreover, in your indication that you would like to move the article to Wookiepedia, it can only be assumed that you want to move it there because it is Star Wars based. Is there not a Star Wars portal for Wikipedia? If that is your opinion, you can't just move one of hundreds of Star Wars articles, you must move them all. You can't move one science fiction/fantasy article to a different site and not move the rest, can you? So, 1) If it can go on Wookiepedia it can go here, and 2) if you want to move it to Wookipedia, you'll have to do the rest. Craigtheomnipotent
- Craig, I believe you're confusing me with KWH, as I've not indicated any interest in moving this to Wookiepedia. Please feel free to redraft your response if you wish, but note that you should not outright remove the above text -- you can simply strike it through by enclosing the text in <s> at the beginning and </s> at the end. — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, Mike, that you have already stated your intent to put this article on Wookiepedia. If you think it belongs there, that indicates that Wookiepedia would take it without question, and since their rules are the same as Wikipedia, it could stay right here without problems. Moreover, in your indication that you would like to move the article to Wookiepedia, it can only be assumed that you want to move it there because it is Star Wars based. Is there not a Star Wars portal for Wikipedia? If that is your opinion, you can't just move one of hundreds of Star Wars articles, you must move them all. You can't move one science fiction/fantasy article to a different site and not move the rest, can you? So, 1) If it can go on Wookiepedia it can go here, and 2) if you want to move it to Wookipedia, you'll have to do the rest. Craigtheomnipotent
- First, as pointed out in the initial nomination, WP:NOT's policy indicates it's the notability of the list itself that comprises whether it stays on Wikipedia — not the individual items that make up the list. The example the policy itself cites is Nixon's list of enemies — in this example, the list itself is famous, and thus the article is kept on the notability of the list itself, not necessarily on the notability of those individuals comprising the list. Second, the rest of your argument seems predicated on an argument that I'm going to nominate all articles relating to Star Wars, Star Trek, StarCraft and Harry Potter for deletion, which I do not intend to do. Third, an article must conform to Wikipedia's content guidelines even if it relates to a popular subject. Fourth, note that the Millennium Falcon, the X-Wing, multiple TIE fighter models ([1]), and Star Destroyers each have their own Wikipedia articles, and so are very well covered on Wikipedia. Finally, please stay calm in your future interactions with your fellow editors, Craig. It not only makes Wikipedia a nicer place to work, it makes your opinion more persuasive. Thanks. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - the cross-wiki links to Wookieepedia within the article show that it belongs there, at the very least. Moreover, I believe that much of the fancruft and fictioncruft on Wikipedia runs into a significant legal problem. It is a copy of a significant amount of copyrighted information, ostensibly under fair use, but with little to no critical commentary to justify the fair use. And yes - there may be a dozen and one other webpages out there who do it too but that doesn't make it more legal for Wikipedia. At the least, articles about fiction should source their information to a third-party secondary source. Lists which apparently are sourced to the fiction work itself (themselves) with no commentary or other transformative addition need to be removed for reasons of legal risk. KWH 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well-said, and that's obviously why a lot of us are stressing and starting the process to attain an "out of universe" perspective; a synopsis should take its references from the work itself (or a published summary), but that leaves development, significance, critical response, and so on for sources outside of summary. Ship names are cool, but an article like the Chimaera star destroyer should have a section devoted to the name origin and why that name was picked, preferably citing an interview with the author, Zahn (and not just an entry in a "trivia" section). — Deckiller 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe, KWH, that 1) there are no links to wookiepedia, only within wikipedia, and 2) while you may have a point regarding the legality of Star Wars and other fictional items on Wikipedia, since the items posted on Wikipedia only consist of information, as long as we don't have Lucasarts copyrighted material in the articles, ie pictures and video clips, we should be fine. Also, nobody from Lucasarts has popped up to annoy Wikipedia, and, correct me if i'm wrong, Wikipedia has never run into a copyright problem before, so I see no reason why Lucasarts would be the first. Beyond that, i see your point about commentary, as far as needing to justify using it, there really is no need. The basis of this article is a collected assortment of ships in the Star Wars universe, with links to the main articles. It's like the List of Star Wars races; the only reason it doesn't have an entry for each is that the authors either haven't gotten around to it, or believe that a link to the main article is sufficient. This is a relatively new article, and as such I think you should tell Relentless what needs to be done, and then give him a limited amount of time to do it. If you really think it should be completely deleted, i suppose he can take it to Wookiepedia. But I have a question. In my reply to mike's reply, i have indicated that if Wookiepedia takes this article, it must be viable to use on Wikipedia, seeing as they use the same rules for editing articles, although Wookie didn't just copy and paste. This being, perhaps if nobody on Wookie puts the article up for deletion for, say, a month, you could let Relentless move it back here without problems. Honestly, I can't see too much wrong with this page. It's just a database. Let it go, please, or use one of my suggestions. Thanks. Craigtheomnipotent
- FYI:
- The links to Wookieepedia are at "Venator-class Star Destroyer".
- I don't know if you understand what is copyrighted material. Unless you made up the names and designs of the ships, they are copyrighted - by Lucas or the other Expanded Universe authors.
- Anytime a copyrighted work or works are discussed or quoted on Wikipedia, we invoke fair use. A lot of things, like cited quotes, are common sense and would never be challenged.
- The primary concerns which need to be addressed here are:
- Much is written from an "in universe" perspective, as well as not NPOV ("the most powerful vessels of the whole galaxy")
- Most is not cited to even a primary source. What movie, book, comic, etc. was it described as such in?
- Even if it were cited to a source, we've got to add value to mere quoted material. If some SW RPG sourcebook says that it's "12.8 kilometers long … with 250 heavy turbolaser batteries, 250 turbolaser batteries, 250 concussion missile tubes …" etc., what's that mean, other than that you copied it out of the book? I think it would be possible and/or interesting to talk about how certain fictional ships might have been based on certain real-life capital ships, as example - of course that would need to be sourced to someone else's commentary to avoid being Original Research.
- Going to non-fictive secondary sources, such as critical commentary, shows both verifiability and encyclopedic interest. For example, The Power of Myth is an excellent source. However, I don't know if anyone has written such commentary about the ships.
- The importance of each of these things is that they make the difference between a transformative "fair use" and a simple unlicensed derivative work.
- Wookieepedia (and other wikia sites) have much more liberal standards on fair use, and of course encyclopedic nature. To tell the truth, I don't know if this would be any more acceptable from copyright or other perspective on Wookiee, just that it would be marginally more acceptable than on Wiki. KWH 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well-said, and that's obviously why a lot of us are stressing and starting the process to attain an "out of universe" perspective; a synopsis should take its references from the work itself (or a published summary), but that leaves development, significance, critical response, and so on for sources outside of summary. Ship names are cool, but an article like the Chimaera star destroyer should have a section devoted to the name origin and why that name was picked, preferably citing an interview with the author, Zahn (and not just an entry in a "trivia" section). — Deckiller 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- as unverified and unsourced.--LeflymanTalk 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's verified by any half-respectable Star Wars lover in the world, and by the books, comics and movies of the Star Wars series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigtheomnipotent (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- It is not verified as Wikipedia requires it to be, and sources have not been cited within the article. Thus, Leflyman's assertion is correct: the article is unverified and uncited. I refer you to the policies outlined at WP:V and WP:CITE for further information. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's verified by any half-respectable Star Wars lover in the world, and by the books, comics and movies of the Star Wars series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigtheomnipotent (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable. And outrageously crufty. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Star Wars is great. But this amount of cruft on Wikipedia is not. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete X-Wing is notable Star Destroyer is notable. A ship that was mentioned once in a comic, not so much. Eluchil404 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not an article suitible for encyclopediac inclusion. No links, does not explain the ships' relevance and has no informative value I can asertain. I note it has some lovely images, however. -Randall Brackett 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wookieepedia then delete. --Zoz (t) 13:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
