Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Darth Nihilus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Discussion moved from main deletion page:
-
- It is unbacked; for all I know, the details came from fan fiction. From where did this elaborately detailed biography come? The article doesn't say. Postdlf 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Are you blind? It says right at the beginning that the character comes a game. Take a wild guess where the information came from, sparky.--Kross 19:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- It says the character is in the game, but it doesn't attribute all information in the article to it. Am I to believe that if I'm playing the game, at some point Darth Nihilus is going to attack me with a "Ha-ha, I strike you, Jedi! I'm a 'survivor of the Mandalorian Wars, and might have been at one point a prisoner of the Mandalorians'! You cannot defeat me!" How was this information established? In the game? How? Outside of the game? If so, in what sources? Postdlf 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- The article even says the character doesn't say a word. So what does that leave us? Do other characters in the game talk about him at great length? Is there an expository text screen that pops up every time he appears? Does he merely have a bio in the printed insert? If so, we may be left with an "article" that really should be nothing more than "Darth Nihilus is the name of an enemy in Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. An elaborate backstory was published in the game cartridge insert, but as the character is mute and simply portrayed as mysterious, this has little impact on game play, nor has the character or his biography been incorporated into any other Star Wars fiction or media." Hardly call for in-depth coverage. Postdlf 19:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, he is talked about at great length by other characters. There's no bio on him anywhere - not on the official site, not in the game manual, not in the strategy guide, nothing. All of this comes from the course of playing the game, and not by expository text screens either. In-depth coverage is quite warranted. Nufy8 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Could you restructure the article to reflect that context? Articles about fictional characters shouldn't read as if they were written within the character's fictional world about a real person, but instead should describe how they are used in real works of fiction in our world. This shouldn't be too hard to do. But I'm still failing to see why the character shouldn't just be merged and redirected to the game article, if he has not been used outside of it. Postdlf 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- What, you mean like including the context of how one learns of certain facts about Nihilus's past? I could do that, but I can't recall everything, so I'll probably need help. And although Nihilus only appears in one piece of Star Wars media, his existence marks a significant change in the entire universe of Star Wars, which spans several media. Nufy8 01:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I meant something along the lines of "Game players merely encounter Nihilus as a mute enemy, who shows up at level ____ and ____. His background is explained through expository dialogue provided by other characters, however, who explain that _____. This information is helpful to the player, who must know that ___ is true in order to ____." Something like that. How is this character encountered in our world? What else about the subject matter would Wikipedia possibly care about? As for your last statement, a "significant change in the entire universe of Star Wars" is only significant to Wikipedia in so much as it is expressed in actual works of fiction. If Nihilus only appears in this game and never anything else, the character is not very significant, no matter how much effort the game designers put into fitting it into the continuity of other works of fiction. Even if the game were to "reveal" that Nihilus actually was Darth Vader's father, that would still be no more than a footnote: "In the game ___, Nihilus is represented as Anakin's father. However, the character and this origin of Anakin have yet to be repeated in any other Star Wars work of fiction." In this hypothesis, it would be silly to rewrite the entire Darth Vader article to reflect this "truth," because the character existed for 25 years without this being "true" of it, and it would only be "true" within one fictional work that certainly had much less exposure than one of the films. It's the impact in our world that counts. Don't view it from within the fictional world.Postdlf 02:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- But its impact on our world goes hand in hand with the fictional universe, just as hundreds of Star Wars characters with articles on Wikipedia. Significant canon characters are recognized outside the fictional universe. That's why some random person making up a character isn't notable - it isn't accepted by the real world, aside from the person who created it. Nufy8 03:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- True, but the question is what that notability entails. There are obviously fans who will work very hard to incorporate every bit of official Star Wars trivia into a coherent story, from the books, comics, movies, tv series, games, etc. Most people won't do that, however. Whatever notability may come from fans who do try to piece together all Star Wars media may be sizeable (and that's why every Star Wars character deserves at least a mention in some relevant article), but it's still insignificant compared to the number of people who just see the movies, or the movies and perhaps some of the cartoons or books. Fans and even George Lucas may say, "Yeah, this guy was always there, in the history of every Star Wars work," but that doesn't make it so unless he was actually portrayed in those works. See retcon. Postdlf 03:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Of course more people will see the movies than play the video games, but popularity is not proportional to notability. And even characters from the movies (such as Yoda) are involved in retconning, not just those strictly from EU. Nufy8 16:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- And if a single comic book issue retcons that Yoda was actually a woman, that detail doesn't overtake the character's previous portrayals in other more dominant media; it would merely be a footnote at the bottom of the article. And if a Sith lord is introduced in one video game and not used elsewhere, he shouldn't be treated as of equal importance to Darth Maul, Darth Sidious, or anyone else who appeared in the films and multiple Star Wars media, no matter how "important" the video game creators tried to make his story. He's still merely ancillary to the video game. If the video game revealed that he trained Palpatine/Darth Sidious, that would just be a footnote at the bottom of the Darth Sidious article: "The game blahblahblah portrayed Darth Nihilus as the master who trained Sidious. However, this was not mentioned in earlier appearances of Sidious in various Star Wars media, and has yet to be repeated elsewhere." Just because it would be a significant change to the Star Wars mythos doesn't mean its a significant change in the character as he has been portrayed, if you get my meaning. Postdlf 17:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- See Phantom Lady for an idea of what I mean; I wrote that article so as to portray the fiction only in terms of the published works, not from the perspective of someone who lives in the same world as the character. Retcons should get described in the order in which they are published, not in the order of fictional chronology. This is difficult, but I think necessary to make these articles encyclopedic instead of fancruft. Postdlf 17:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- So there's a number requirement for the amount of media a fictional character has to be in before it's notable? Because it's only been in one published work it doesn't deserve to be documented in its own article? Adding to the amount of media something is portrayed in doesn't automatically make it more notable. It does, however, make it more popular, and like I said, the two aren't the same. Nufy8 18:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say a fictional character's notability is a function of the public awareness and impact of that character. Because it's only been in one published work, it's simply harder to make a case for its notability independent of that work than if it were in many. As far as how many published works, for example, I'd say that a character who only appeared in one Star Wars film is likely more notable than a character who only appeared in twenty comic books, no matter what that character's story was (though I doubt any character who appeared in any of the films hasn't also been used ad nauseum in every other form of media). What would you say makes a character notable, for purposes of Wikipedia? BTW, I just found another good example of the type of reality-focused writing about fiction that I'm talking about: take a look at Robert April, a Star Trek character. Postdlf 02:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- A character that plays a significant role tied to a fictional universe, in the universe itself and by the outside world's recognition of its importance and authenticity is what I see as notable. I see no problem in mentioning a major character on the article of the media in which he or she appears, but to deny in-depth biographical information and how that character interacts with the user seems like an unreasonable limitation. And on the other extreme, describing in-depth biographical and interactive aspects of every character's being on just that one medium's page would be detrimental to its purpose; to cover the game itself, and not get bogged down in character specifics. A good example of that is Half-Life and Half-Life 2, which leave important characters not seen in any other media to have their own articles. Nufy8 03:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say a fictional character's notability is a function of the public awareness and impact of that character. Because it's only been in one published work, it's simply harder to make a case for its notability independent of that work than if it were in many. As far as how many published works, for example, I'd say that a character who only appeared in one Star Wars film is likely more notable than a character who only appeared in twenty comic books, no matter what that character's story was (though I doubt any character who appeared in any of the films hasn't also been used ad nauseum in every other form of media). What would you say makes a character notable, for purposes of Wikipedia? BTW, I just found another good example of the type of reality-focused writing about fiction that I'm talking about: take a look at Robert April, a Star Trek character. Postdlf 02:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- So there's a number requirement for the amount of media a fictional character has to be in before it's notable? Because it's only been in one published work it doesn't deserve to be documented in its own article? Adding to the amount of media something is portrayed in doesn't automatically make it more notable. It does, however, make it more popular, and like I said, the two aren't the same. Nufy8 18:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Of course more people will see the movies than play the video games, but popularity is not proportional to notability. And even characters from the movies (such as Yoda) are involved in retconning, not just those strictly from EU. Nufy8 16:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- True, but the question is what that notability entails. There are obviously fans who will work very hard to incorporate every bit of official Star Wars trivia into a coherent story, from the books, comics, movies, tv series, games, etc. Most people won't do that, however. Whatever notability may come from fans who do try to piece together all Star Wars media may be sizeable (and that's why every Star Wars character deserves at least a mention in some relevant article), but it's still insignificant compared to the number of people who just see the movies, or the movies and perhaps some of the cartoons or books. Fans and even George Lucas may say, "Yeah, this guy was always there, in the history of every Star Wars work," but that doesn't make it so unless he was actually portrayed in those works. See retcon. Postdlf 03:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- But its impact on our world goes hand in hand with the fictional universe, just as hundreds of Star Wars characters with articles on Wikipedia. Significant canon characters are recognized outside the fictional universe. That's why some random person making up a character isn't notable - it isn't accepted by the real world, aside from the person who created it. Nufy8 03:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I meant something along the lines of "Game players merely encounter Nihilus as a mute enemy, who shows up at level ____ and ____. His background is explained through expository dialogue provided by other characters, however, who explain that _____. This information is helpful to the player, who must know that ___ is true in order to ____." Something like that. How is this character encountered in our world? What else about the subject matter would Wikipedia possibly care about? As for your last statement, a "significant change in the entire universe of Star Wars" is only significant to Wikipedia in so much as it is expressed in actual works of fiction. If Nihilus only appears in this game and never anything else, the character is not very significant, no matter how much effort the game designers put into fitting it into the continuity of other works of fiction. Even if the game were to "reveal" that Nihilus actually was Darth Vader's father, that would still be no more than a footnote: "In the game ___, Nihilus is represented as Anakin's father. However, the character and this origin of Anakin have yet to be repeated in any other Star Wars work of fiction." In this hypothesis, it would be silly to rewrite the entire Darth Vader article to reflect this "truth," because the character existed for 25 years without this being "true" of it, and it would only be "true" within one fictional work that certainly had much less exposure than one of the films. It's the impact in our world that counts. Don't view it from within the fictional world.Postdlf 02:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- What, you mean like including the context of how one learns of certain facts about Nihilus's past? I could do that, but I can't recall everything, so I'll probably need help. And although Nihilus only appears in one piece of Star Wars media, his existence marks a significant change in the entire universe of Star Wars, which spans several media. Nufy8 01:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Could you restructure the article to reflect that context? Articles about fictional characters shouldn't read as if they were written within the character's fictional world about a real person, but instead should describe how they are used in real works of fiction in our world. This shouldn't be too hard to do. But I'm still failing to see why the character shouldn't just be merged and redirected to the game article, if he has not been used outside of it. Postdlf 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, he is talked about at great length by other characters. There's no bio on him anywhere - not on the official site, not in the game manual, not in the strategy guide, nothing. All of this comes from the course of playing the game, and not by expository text screens either. In-depth coverage is quite warranted. Nufy8 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, we do have list of minor Sith characters, which could handle any details that the game article can't absorb. I just can't see a character that only appears in one game as significant. Even if the game creators wrote that Nihilus is really the cross-dressing lover of Palpatine, that's still just in the one game, which most people familiar with Star Wars and Palpatine won't encounter, so it can't be said to have affected a significant change in Star Wars media until that gets repeated elsewhere. You're still looking at this from within the fictional universe, instead of from the real-world perspective of collective works of fiction. And you have to compare the impact of each work of fiction on the real world, not the impact that each work internally claims for itself on those other works of fiction. The game creators have no power over the notability of their creations. They can write whatever "important" story they want for him (he hand-built both Death Stars with one arm tied behind his back, he knocked the second sun into the Tatooine system by sneezing, he created Hutts by genetically engineering clones of Yoda), but until it gets incorporated and repeated into other media, or acquires the attention of a widespread audience, it's still nothing more than a story within that one game, and notable only to people who played that game or are aware of its details. Postdlf 03:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Another point: currently the article does not in any way describe how the character interacts with the game player. It just presents a self-contained biography as if it were derived from a novel. I'd expect some if-then descriptions. "If the player attacks Nihilus instead of fleeing..." "If Nihilus is not killed by the player in level four..." Or "the player cannot kill Nihilus, though he will observe the non-player character of Blahblahblah will do so if he survives to level nine..." or whatever. Could you fix that so it doesn't just read like a story, but instead actually describes how the character is interacted with, and how information about him is discovered? Postdlf 03:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, there are quite a bit of character articles on Wikipedia - Star Wars and others - that only appear in one medium. And although it may appear to be fancruft, I'd still disagree that it is of zero notability to non-fans.
- If I feel up to it, I'll attempt to include more content on player interactivity tomorrow. Nufy8 04:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
