On 6/26/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Let's face the facts: Gray Jedi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Jedi, Dark Jedi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Jedi, Dark side devotee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_devotee, Sith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sith, Jerec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerec, Aayla Secura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aayla_Secura, Tremayne (Star Wars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremayne_%28Star_Wars%29, Xanatos (Star Wars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanatos_%28Star_Wars%29, Asajj Ventress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asajj_Ventress, Sev'rance Tann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sev%27rance_Tann, Yuuzhan Vong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuuzhan_Vong, *Lightsaber combat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber_combat*, *Force-sensitive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-sensitive* and *Holocron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocron*, to name just a few. I love everything Star Wars, but notability and MOS guidelines that embrace this gallopping chaos must be rewritten sooner or later, ideally complementing each other.
What's the fact? That the Star Wars universe is large? That many people are interested in it? That it's complicated?
Hmm, for those reasons maybe Wikipedia should have comprehensive coverage of the subject.
Also, I appreciate that "notability" is an often-abused term, but on the other hand, any ambiguity in policies and guidelines is likewise prone to tendentious interpretation. I wouldn't usually argue for stricter guidelines, but here they are necessary.
Or maybe they're not.
And I don't quite understand why people are opposed to inter-article merging and intra-article merging (i.e. condensing material), seeing as the current guidelines let everything go unchecked. Guidelines would ideally not be necessary at all, but the current mess in articles about fiction doesn't allow for that luxury.
I dislike the idea of using a rewritten notability guideline as a club when common-sense guidelines about using links instead of repeating content, using concise prose, sticking to verifiable information, and avoiding subjective interpretation are perfectly sufficient to prune cruft.
In other words, Strunk and White is sufficient. No need to hammer a square peg into a round hole.