269:. Well, for Knowledge, winning would be reaching the goal of having an online encyclopedia with encyclopedic information. Losing would be failing to attain that goal (and as I previously mentioned, deleting this list may cause more breaches in policy than this list (if it even has any), which means more disputes and the other points I mentioned above)). Policies help guide something to the goal, or help maintain that goal once it's attained. They serve as central rules that all articles strive to attain by constant editing and discussions on what meets them and what does not. On this specific level (in my interpretation), winning would be having no creaturecruft; losing would be having some sort of creaturecruft present. Knowledge policy is known for being interpreted several ways; this is the main reason why it is often debated during AfDs. And yes, some of those are "fanboys", but unfortunately for the encyclopedia, fanboys often count toward consensus. Please note that I am not a fanboy, nor do I have any interest in this list; I am merely speaking on behalf of those who feel that this can and does meet policy, and serves other uses beneficial to the integrity of the encyclopedia.
297:
creatures are "famous" as the policy states (and the topic of star wars creatures), and many of these creatures are commonly dicsussed because they appear as creatures in Star Wars. So, while some fo these creatures are part of a famous branch of a large fictional universe, many are, of course, not famous because they did not appear in numerous media sources. That is why the list is a split between policy and non-policy; some are notable enough in a list, others are not. That is where the cruft magnet concept really leaned me toward support in this case. So yes, while this isn't a place to change policy, it is a place to enforce an arguement with rationale based on interpretations of the policy and in relation with common sense. My "cruft magnet" idea was to provide a neutral way of compromise between deletionism and inclusionism while displaying the potential benefits for the encyclopedia.
209:
and other things while still serving as a dam. Also, it (when done correctly) prevents any conflicts by providing a compromise. Containing it into a list may not work, but deleting this list and having fans create minor articles without knowing any better will, in essense, force us to deal with 80+ other AfDs. For example, one day I merged about 30 minor topics into a list. From that day on, users added their cruft to the list; not in their own articles. It saved on work, time, and it left the information grouped together for the possible chance of a encyclopedic turn. Look at
283:
creatures are common in every branch of Star Wars, which makes up hundreds of books, six featured movies, dozens of video games, hundreds of comics, and so on. If something is noticed from, say, six different sources, it will obviously be more notable than some of the stuff that already meets policy because the human mind makes connections. If I remember correctly, that line about "it is famous in association with the topic of the list" was put in as a safeguard to keep lists that have some sort of notability, but still serve as "lists of information".
149:. If someone can create an eneyclopedic article on star wars technology (or devices, in this case), then I would support that. Think of it this way; having one semi-guideline violation beats having 150 major guideline violations. The lesser of two evils is that this list remain as a "cruft dam" to provide potential for an encyclopedic shift and also to save on process, time, and lost ambition by new users with potential. —
101:
Menace was swimming through the core and encountering numerous sea monsters and creatures, some of which were replicated with, say, legos. Creatures' sounds are also key to the sound/music feel of a scene. Clearly, a wide variety, no, a whole list Star Wars creatures played a major role in the films and the books, and so on. An option would be a
282:
For example, when we talk about an indiscriminate collection of information, this is often held by a case by case basis because of the numerous other policies and guidelines, personal interpretations, and so on. In short; I may see something as meeting policy that you do not. On the topic of policy,
193:
there is an old saying about disk-space and disk-quota. The more quota one has, the more quota one will use. It's a great idea to contain, but it will simply never work. A better idea would be to have a sister project that allows it to grow, along with all of the other TV show articles that can never
100:
In terms of Star Wars creatures not contributing to the fame of their subject, I disagree: the tauntaun sliced open was not only a key plot point, but it gave viewers an interest in one of the creatures. The
Banthas are often used in all Star Wars Tatooine settings. A major plot device of The Phantom
233:
This is a no win situation. I try to look at the side that has the chance of being the less damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole (and not just one policy or guideline). We keep the article, it's still keeping minor stuff on it. We don't keep the article, the cruft will spill out and alienate many
208:
Those are some good points; and
Wikibooks would be a solid place for this information. However, I still stand by my idea — we have seen a significant reduction in mini star wars articles in, for example, the creatures section. Additionally, it is still possible to provide citations, enhanced prose,
310:
The above makes me think of an alternative: if a creature is referenced in many sources (making it well-known), then perhaps it deserves inclusion in the list. On the other hand, if it's a creature from one book, then it should be taken out of the list. The list would still remain, but it could be
71:. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Knowledge'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
296:
While I personally think that most of these creatures should only be mentioned in a synopsis (at most), the policy as I see it seems to overrule my own opinion in terms of this list's usage for enhancing the encyclopedia's content (and not its structure — that's the "cruft dam" idea). star wars
227:
policies in order to bring it to a closer encyclopedic standard) won't divert attention away from our featured articles. As a matter of fact, if we have to deal with many minor stubs, it may have more of a chance of turning people off when they hit "random
256:
Winning and losing appear to be biased means of judging. I prefer policy. At least I know that it was based on a consensus of those who came before me. If you think that policy is incorrect, then there are other places to discuss those.
590:
writings contributed by 'pedia users are licensed under the GFDL. Ships, characters, and other story elements which were made up by Lucas, Zahn, and others are copyrighted by them and can only be included under a fair use claim.
576:
share information via the GDFL. But even if this list is no longer worthy of
Knowledge, then I advise all users working on it to contribute to Wookieepedia where everything is separated and not under deletion. --
222:
At the same time, I would also like to address that
Knowledge is not paper, which means that having a cruft magnet (that, as a collective body, can actually be easily referenced and enhanced to try to adhere to
538:
The 'cruft dam' argument is a non-starter for me, if people want to try to create these articles, then they need to be informed of the encyclopedic policy, not pacified. I cannot sense the good in it.
109:; a rewrite that could begin soona nd be finished in a matter of days. Clearly, the topic of creatures in star wars has plenty of significance; it's the cruft safeguard that I'm most worried about. —
75:
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. —
234:
users with potential (don't worry, I'm not one of them — I didn't contribute to this article outside of merges and janitorial work. the only thing I have to lose is edit count.). —
311:
sifted to adhere to a more agreed interpretation of the WP:NOT policy. If other, fixable policy breeches are taken care of, then this list would be all set. —
613:, What if someone wants to find out about Tauntauns or Acklay or Blenjeel SandWorms? Sorry, but deleting this page is stupid. User: Shaak Ti 22:02 7 July 2006
516:
528:
194:
be maintained to an encyclopedic standard and which hinder policies by existing as precedents to confuse new users like myself. Delete it.
482:
171:, per Deckiller. I like the cruft dam idea - contain it on one page so it doesn't get out of control (we're not Wookieepedia). --
145:
originally, I merged these into a list to get someone else to nominate it for deletion. However, we need to make sure that these
86:
17:
649:
623:
597:
581:
565:
544:
505:
485:
467:
436:
411:
398:
386:
374:
355:
343:
325:
261:
248:
198:
182:
163:
137:
123:
90:
55:
453:
61:
217:
used to be a list of magic spells. Or, heck, most of the other Final
Fantasy pages for that matter. It can be done.
449:
666:
36:
665:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
524:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
479:
210:
502:
340:
620:
463:
134:
76:
645:
578:
520:
321:
244:
214:
178:
159:
119:
476:
458:
640:
498:
316:
239:
154:
114:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
424:
50:
494:
369:
637:
433:
313:
236:
173:
151:
111:
632:
593:
561:
540:
190:
213:, which was originally a collection of about 20 articles. It is now a good article.
573:
408:
363:
per
Deckiller and also using that logic you could delete every list on Knowledge.
383:
352:
395:
364:
258:
195:
552:
Not to mention that I see things like "fair use" images being brought here
631:
unfortunately, it's impossible to be a waste of space per se, because
444:
per
Deckiller and, to be consistent with other similar articles,
659:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
107:
significance of creatures in relation to the Star Wars universe
557:
82:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
513:. Somewhat fancrufty, needs sources and cleanup.
669:). No further edits should be made to this page.
475:. Quite a few important creatures in there. --
8:
147:do not get their own articles in the future
133:per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft.
407:. Most of that is pretty important. -
7:
556:Wookieepedia to decorate the list.
103:rewrite to an encyclopedic article
98:Comment following up a vote below:
24:
48:no consensus - default to keep
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
572:Actually, both Knowledge and
454:Minor characters in Star Wars
44:The result of the debate was
456:for the parallel example.) —
450:Minor creatures in Star Wars
586:Just to be clear, only the
62:List of Star Wars creatures
686:
531:) 20:39, 6 Jul 2006 (UTC)
619:per nom. Waste of space.
662:Please do not modify it.
650:12:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
635:a paper encyclopedia. —
624:08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
598:22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
582:05:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
566:04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
545:04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
506:01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
486:00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
468:23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
437:13:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
412:06:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
399:03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
387:02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
375:01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
356:00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
344:00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
326:23:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
262:22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
249:21:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
199:21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
183:20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
164:18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
138:18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
124:01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
91:17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
56:07:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
559:That's not a fair use.
493:Restrict to those from
211:Spira (Final Fantasy X)
519:comment was added by
215:Final Fantasy magic
532:
419:. Failing that,
341:The Wookieepedian
181:
53:
677:
664:
643:
514:
372:
367:
319:
242:
177:
157:
117:
49:
34:
685:
684:
680:
679:
678:
676:
675:
674:
673:
667:deletion review
660:
641:
515:—The preceding
432:per Deckiller.
394:per Deckiller.
382:per Deckiller.
370:
365:
351:per Deckiller.
339:per Deckiller.
317:
240:
155:
135:KillerChihuahua
115:
105:describing the
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
683:
681:
672:
671:
655:
654:
653:
652:
621:Robertsteadman
614:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
579:Riffsyphon1024
533:
521:Bibliomaniac15
508:
488:
470:
439:
427:
414:
401:
389:
377:
358:
346:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
230:
229:
219:
218:
202:
201:
185:
166:
140:
127:
126:
94:
93:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
682:
670:
668:
663:
657:
656:
651:
648:
647:
644:
639:
634:
630:
627:
626:
625:
622:
618:
617:Strong Delete
615:
612:
609:
599:
596:
595:
589:
585:
584:
583:
580:
575:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
564:
563:
558:
555:
551:
548:
547:
546:
543:
542:
537:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
512:
509:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
487:
484:
481:
478:
474:
471:
469:
465:
461:
460:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
438:
435:
431:
428:
426:
422:
418:
415:
413:
410:
406:
402:
400:
397:
393:
390:
388:
385:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:-(need help?)
368:
362:
359:
357:
354:
350:
347:
345:
342:
338:
335:
334:
327:
324:
323:
320:
315:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
268:
265:
264:
263:
260:
255:
252:
251:
250:
247:
246:
243:
238:
232:
231:
226:
221:
220:
216:
212:
207:
204:
203:
200:
197:
192:
189:
186:
184:
180:
176:
175:
170:
167:
165:
162:
161:
158:
153:
148:
144:
141:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:
125:
122:
121:
118:
113:
108:
104:
99:
96:
95:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
74:
70:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
661:
658:
636:
628:
616:
610:
592:
587:
574:Wookieepedia
560:
553:
549:
539:
535:
510:
499:Arthur Rubin
490:
472:
457:
445:
441:
429:
420:
416:
404:
391:
379:
360:
348:
336:
312:
266:
253:
235:
224:
205:
187:
172:
168:
150:
146:
142:
130:
110:
106:
102:
97:
77:
72:
68:
45:
43:
31:
28:
497:sources. —
179:talk. o.o;;
51:Pegasus1138
417:Categorise
73:comprising
495:canonical
434:Lynnathon
228:article".
174:Coredesat
588:original
529:contribs
517:unsigned
483:contribs
87:contribs
638:Deckill
629:Comment
550:Comment
452:. (See
409:LtNOWIS
314:Deckill
267:Comment
254:Comment
237:Deckill
206:Comment
152:Deckill
112:Deckill
633:WP:NOT
536:Delete
503:(talk)
480:(talk)
459:C.Fred
384:BryanG
353:Nifboy
191:WP:NOT
188:Delete
131:Delete
69:Delete
423:. --
403:weak
396:Skope
366:Jedi6
259:Ste4k
196:Ste4k
54:----
16:<
611:Keep
554:from
525:talk
511:Keep
491:Keep
477:maru
473:Keep
464:talk
446:move
442:Keep
430:Keep
421:keep
405:Keep
392:Keep
380:Keep
361:Keep
349:Keep
337:Keep
225:more
169:Keep
143:Keep
83:talk
78:Mike
46:kept
594:KWH
562:KWH
541:KWH
501:|
448:to
425:GWO
527:•
466:)
89:)
85:•
646:r
642:e
523:(
462:(
322:r
318:e
245:r
241:e
160:r
156:e
120:r
116:e
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.