Policy Talk:Notability

Peder Smythe

Note that this discussion originated on the Peder Smythe article and has been moved here.

Is this article really notable? I cannot see it being expanded beyond its current size, so, in lieu of the fact that Category:People is growing quickly, do we want to keep this (and other, similar articles)? --Scaletail 15:35, 30 November 2007 (CST)

Weak Keep: I envision BTW to be the end-all, be-all of everything that was every printed in CBT, and in this respect, I had been planning to 'lead the way' by creating at leats a stub entry for every name I found in at least one title. However, I am a lot less niave now (but no less wishful). Compared to many of the people in the People category, he is definitely non-notable. However does it hurt the wiki to have him on? For someone (possibly a CBT writer) who may some day search for a person who fits certain parameters (in this case: intelligence, Magistracy, 3067), the search would lead him here and maybe they'd expand the character accordingly.

To be honest, I won't fight to keep him, but I don't see a reason to delete him. Notability within the scope of this wiki is different than that for Wikipedia. I'd not allow vanity articles about fans, but for everyone who's ever been associated with official products (fictional and real), I'd think this wiki would provide some value.

In the last few days, I've really taken some lessons from Star Trek's Memory Alpha and Memory Beta wikis on how to handle in-character and real-world (i.e. background) information and I appreicate how they compile information on the smallest of characters. Since 'our' universe is arguably richer than Trek's, I'd like to see us reap the benefits of a similar system (that is, information at the pam of one's hand, whether you own OOP books or not). Too preachy? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:47, 6 December 2007 (CST)

I'm not fighting to delete (note that I did not even put up a deletion tag), but I think we need to discuss and come to a consensus on exactly what we want BTW to be. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with creating a page for every character that gets a mention in a sourcebook, because then we would have thousands of one-line stubs like this with various officers from the Field Manual series. I understand your point that notability here is not what it is on WP (hell, I'm trying to decide if I'm going to contest deletion on "ComStar" over there), but I don't think that anything and everything BT is notable, so I believe we need to hammer out some guidelines on notability.
Perhaps Peder should stay, but if someone were (hypothetically) to create an article on one of the infantry regiment commanders from the 6th Syrtis Fusiliers that gets no mention elsewhere, do we keep it? If this person were then to do the same for every infantry regiment commander in Field Manual: Federated Suns, do we keep them all? Where does it stop? --Scaletail 14:27, 6 December 2007 (CST)

Your POV is just as valid, I have to say. You are absolutely right: we need to create a notability policy, after hashing out what we want. I'm a bit short of time right now, but might I suggest you create a (mostly) blank Policy:Notability page and then transfer this conversation to its talk page? We can advertise on the news section that the discussion is taking place, because, frankly, I think it is /the/ defining issue for this wiki and as many editors as we can get need to take part in the discussion. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 6 December 2007 (CST)

Notability Policy

The above discussion was one started by Scaletail and Revanche on the notability of a very minor character. The discussion was quickly realized to be one of BattleTech Wiki policy, which involves all editors. So, at the start, two viewpoints are being put forth. They are separated below for easy discussion on their individual merits. If any other editors want to suggest a third option, please start a new section below these first two. Please limit discussion of the suggested policies to within their segregated sections.

---

First POV: An Encyclopedia of notable information

• This POV suggests that there should be some criteria, however limited, for inclusion in BTW. The exact guidelines will obviously need to be determined, but nobody is served by thousands of one-line articles that can be traced only to passing references in sourcebooks that have not been fleshed out. Just because a mercenary unit, weapon, or person is mentioned does not mean that he/she/it/they deserve an article. Note that this does not preclude something that may have began as a passing reference, but has been fleshed out, from inclusion. Similarly, something that may someday be notable should not be included. This POV wishes to ensure that a BTW article provides actual information about the subject.

---

Second POV: Galactica Encyclopedia for BattleTech

• This POV suggests that anything established within canon (oh, good lord: another policy to be hammered out), no matter how small, is pertinent to this BattleTech depository. I hold that -at some point- Sarna will be the starting point for any research needed to find out where characters, 'Mechs, locations, writers were ever mentioned in anything published by FASA, FanPro, Catalyst or any other future trademark owners. By being the Wikipedia of BattleTech, at the least someone who wants to find out where something was mentioned can come across (again, at the least a stub article providing a reference to the originating book).

Policy fun

While both sides of this discussion have merit, to me it comes down to an equation of energy spent to number of hits. It seems to me that while tons of hours could be devoted to making an article (at least a stub) for each of these supremely minor characters, that time could be better served streamlining the current content. While to an extent i feel like i am over stepping my boundaries, certain articles about very important characters are lacking (not due to any lack of effort but for all intents and purposes lack of sources) i was attempting to look up Precentor Dieron / Primus Sharilar Mori to show something to a friend and when i got to the article it still contained all of the 'insert here' text. But thats enough from me, so in conclusion i guess i support the POV of relevancy over all inclusive (for the time being that is). Thanks MasterOfDisaster 22:48, 7 December 2007 (CST)

I mainly agree with the second POV -- that we should include anything canon from the universe, no matter how small. However, I don't think that we should strive to include everything from the universe. Meaning, if someone sees an article that is lacking, and they want to use the energy making the article, we should not delete the article. But we shouldn't have the end-goal as having an article for every minute character. If someone found a character interesting enough to create an article, we should keep it. Nicjansma 11:14, 8 December 2007 (CST)

I second Nic's statement. If it's canon then it's canon, and as such matters to this wiki, at least if someone can be bothered to write it up. (See the Talk page for Wolf's Dragoons when my references to CritterTEK were deleted for being "irrelevant".) Incidentially, I was going to include a number of mercenary units solely on grounds of a note when and where they were destroyed, and by whom. Yes, their notability might be arguable. But the incidents provide loose ends to be fleshed out in a scenario or short story. As a GM I like it to use exactly that kind of hooks as the basis of a campaign, to tie it in with the canon. Frabby 14:11, 8 December 2007 (CST)

I guess that's where I ultimately stand. I see 'canonicity' therefore being the next issue, but think we should table that discussion until we see where this one goes. (Once we're clear as to consensus on notability, Scaletail and I will start one on the BTWiki's definition of 'canon.') As for notability, I back keeping any character that has met canon requirements, no matter how small (though stub tags should be employed, as necessary - with the exception of minute characters where no further information is available). --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:12, 8 December 2007 (CST)

While I see no problem in doing it this way, I think we need to be aware that most people are not looking for one line blurbs about "X" that they've never heard of before because it's so minor it barely merits attention. *So*, we need to differentiate the little stuff out, for example by creating a "minor characters" category so people who are interested in that could go there from Category:People. Does that sound reasonable? --Scaletail 19:29, 8 December 2007 (CST)

This idea intrigues me. What you're suggesting, then, is that instead of deleting minor articles that have little-to-no chance of being further developed, they instead get tagged with an appropriate category (and possibly tag?). Is that right? Just to be clear, are you suggesting we keep them out of the 'major peoples' category? In that case, each article (with exceptions for things like planets and vehicles) will need to be categorized into a major or minor category. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 8 December 2007 (CST)

I'm not sure what you mean by "mainspace," but the other answers would be "yes." Perhaps categories such as "People (minor)", "BattleMechs (incomplete)", and could denote such articles. For instance, there was a story about Clan Wolverine released on BattleCorps that included new 'Mechs, but no technical data was given for those 'Mechs. We could have an article on one such unit, but since there are no stats for the design, it should be categorized differently as it would of necessity be different than the other BattleMech articles. The same goes for people and anything else that we have extremely limited data on. Again, there may come a time when the "minor" tag can be removed, so the article would not be permanently relegated to that status, but it should be noted until such time as that happens. --Scaletail 11:34, 9 December 2007 (CST)

Okay, I'm liking this. I'd like to redivert this conversation now to explictly discuss this concept. I'll start it below. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:14, 9 December 2007 (CST)

Solution Proposal

Scaletail has proposed that articles where notability is in doubt be categorized within an appropriate minor category. That is, when ever an editor starts or edits an article where the object of the article is non-notable, instead of requesting a deletion review, the editor will place the article in the appropriate minor category. An upper tier category will be created to list all of the 'minor' categories available. When the article has been expanded enough to warrant notability, then the tag will be replaced with the appropriate 'major' category.
For example: the article Peder Smythe is definitely a stub article and its notability is almost non-existant. As such, an editor can deem the article 'minor' and tack the Peder Smythe tag onto it. Later, another editor may choose to beef up the article with relevant and amplifying information about Peder Smythe. Upon completion, he may determine that the article is relevant enough to remove both the stub and 'minor' classifications and add the Category:People tag to it instead.
Looking for opinions on this proposal:

Agree: I think this is an acceptable way to address the relevancy of all canon articles to BTW, without over-emphasizing minor characters, et al, especially those that will most likely not be expanded upon. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:14, 9 December 2007 (CST)

Now will this re-classification of articles be Wiki-wide or is it just applicable to characters only? Regardless I am in concurrence with Revanche. MasterOfDisaster 02:18, 10 December 2007 (CST)

I gotta be honest with you: if an editor feels an article is not notable, no matter the subject of the article, they'd be able to place it in this category. The purpose of this compromise is to acknowledge that anything within the canon deserves to be on BTW (and not deleted), but some items cannot ever achieve more than stub status. However, if an article's notability is debatable, then a consensus discussion could lead to the article being returned to the larger 'majority' category. Scaletail's example above of canon 'Mechs being discussed on BattleCorps is an excellent example of certain 'Mechs (tho very rare) not being up to the standards of having standard articles being built around them. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:44, 10 December 2007 (CST)

As of right now, the only articles that would qualify as such that I know of are on characters. As I tried to point out with my above example, it is theoretically possible that other types of articles could fall under this categorization scheme, though none have yet been created. --Scaletail 19:48, 10 December 2007 (CST)

IMO the wiki should be as comprehensive as possible, but also each page should be valuable in terms of content. Personally, I would rather redirect minor characters to a small listing (in this case "Magistracy of Canopus/Minor characters" or some such). Then categorize the redirect to allow it appear in all applicable categories. A minor character page can be expanded even if it only starts with someone like Peder Smythe making it more valuable but allowing the wiki to be completely comprehensive.

I believe the entries should appear in those categories no matter how minor, to be inclusive as a listing. IMO splitting people between Category:Minor characters and Category:Major characters is perfectly acceptable, but I think it should be in addition to a total listing of Category:People. --avfanatic (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (CST)

I can see the merit in creating a "minor characters" subpage for faction articles and listing them there. Then, we would not need a "minor characters" category, as those pages would simple be categorized under Category:People. My only concern is for mercenary characters, as most minor characters are only associated with one faction. I suppose we could simply create a similar page off of "Mercenaries". IIRC, it's also how the situation is dealt with on Wikipedia. --Scaletail 11:03, 22 December 2007 (CST)

As I understand it you are saying that you are going to create pages like "Minor Mercenary Units", "Minor BattleTech characters", etc. that contain a list of items with a short descriptions, and use links like [ [Minor BattleTech characters#Peder Smythe]], similar as has been done with Bandit Kingdoms in this wiki already (eg. Bandit Kingdom#Belt Pirates. I like this solution. Especially since the entries can be taken out of the "Minor" list and be made into their articles if more information becomes available. The "minor" pages would then either be placed in their respective category and/or be mentioned in the category description. Frabby 06:45, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Disagree: I see no reason to divide an otherwise coherent group of items within a category into those which are unimportant and those which are not. You would probably end up with no end of trouble trying to tell "normal" articles apart from "minor" ones. It is the nature of a wiki that some articles are bound to be very short, incomplete or simply covering a "minor" issue. Frabby 14:48, 9 December 2007 (CST)

Granted, there will be judgment calls to make on some occasions. When in doubt, in shouldn't be classified as minor. However, look at the difference between Peder Smythe and Katherine Steiner-Davion, or even Tancred Sandoval or George Hasek. The differences are immediately evident, especially under the "References" section. My concern is that somebody will pull up a given category and find it clogged with articles that give very little information. I also disagree with you on the nature of wikis. On any of them that I know, such an article would be considered "not notable" and deleted, but everybody other than myself wants to be quite inclusive. --Scaletail 19:03, 9 December 2007 (CST)

If every little canon detail is included, wouldn't that just be replacing the TROs, House Books, etc? I don't really see the wiki this way, and I'll give an example of how I think it should work. In the House Davion sourcebook there is a short article on a mutiny by Beaufort's Cossacks when they could not get what they ordered at the local Triple F restaurant. Adding Beaufort's Cossacks in the list of mercenaries would be pointless, since this is the only mention of them (that I know of) and could be put to better use as a small stub within an article on Federated Fast Foods, if there is enough information for an article on the restaurant chain. Otherwise, the wiki feels like a replacement for the books, and becomes an unwieldy source for someone who is looking up information. If someone writes a novel or a new sourcebook has a large entry on Peder Smythe then an article can be made for him, no need in having a minor article with one or two lines first. Just my two cents. Dmzline 17:10, 26 December 2007 (EST)

I'm having a tough time with this one. While I think that it makes sense to delineate between "major" and "minor" characters, I'm not certain whether segmenting them at this point makes a lot of sense. We currently don't have a lot of People articles (88 last count). Honestly, I'm surprised this even came up as we have so many major characters that are undocumented (the first Minoru Kurita anyone?). I think that in general the idea is good. I would worry about the execution. And the issue of "what is canon", but that's a different discussion (that I very much look forward to :). I certainly wouldn't expect people to put their own MechWarrior characters in the BTechWiki (unless they were published in a canon source). I guess I don't see that it's a major issue at this stage and that we can either choose to do something (create the minor category and place those few articles under that banner) or let it play out longer to see if it's truly something we need to address. Bdevoe 07:50, 27 December 2007 (CST)