Wikipedia: Guidelines for covering extraterrestrial topics
WP:ET redirects here.
This is a set of policies relating to articles about individuals, technology, culture, history and other topics related to extraterrestrial species. Other pages you may wish to keep in mind as you edit include the existing policies on Biographies of Living Persons and Notability.
This is a constant work in progress! Please remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy and we seek consensus-building. You are encouraged to share your feedback and help us as we continue to make our site a more accessible and comprehensive resource.
Articles about individual Andalites should be titled with their full name: Aximili-Esgarrouth-Isthill, not Aximili.
When referring to an individual previously mentioned, use their family name unless needed to avoid disambiguation: “Esgarrouth was promoted to the rank of prince.” But: “Barafin-Chelro-Hantis was the son of Seerow-Chelro-Joquir. Barafin [not Chelro] was killed along with his parents while residing on the Hork-Bajir homeworld.”
Why? Almost every secondary source refers to Andalites by their given names, see this Los Angeles times article, this online publication etc.
For the same reason we refer to Ban Ki-Moon as Ban, not Ki-Moon.
Disagree. The appropriate parallel here is with Icelandic patronymics: “Prime Minister Jóhanna”, not “Prime Minister Sigurðardóttir.”
Andalite names are not patronymics.
You’re being deliberately obtuse.
+1, there are significantly more Google hits for “Aximili” than “Esgarrouth.”
Personal name use adopted as guideline pending review.
Articles about individual Yeerks should be titled with their given name, to avoid disambiguation: Edriss 562, not Visser One.
The most appropriate convention for referring to twins is “Primary” and “Secondary.” Esplin 9466 Primary is the given name of the Yeerk often referenced as Visser Three, to which Esplin 9466 Prime redirects. “Lesser” (rather than “Secondary”) is deprecated.
The Google results for “Ivram 3411 the Lesser” and “Ivram 3411 Secondary” are comparable, for reference.
Words of extraterrestrial origin that have become common parlance in English or other Earth languages should be unitalicized: Escafil device, Kandrona, Aristh. Names of individual spaceships may be italicized: GalaxyTree (but not Blade Ship, which is a model).
Why is aristh lowercase when Prince is capitalized?
Aristh is a loanword, Prince is a translation into English.
Well if anything it should be the other way around then.
When in doubt, defer to the use of secondary sources.
Is “blade ship” default lowercase? Google isn’t helping.
When referencing a pool-based Yeerk, the most appropriate pronoun to use is “they.” Consider reframing references to other plural agents when possible.
“Kurit 604 is a Yeerk born in the Sulp Niar pool. They are the programmer of software language IX0, which models Zero-Space trajectories for non-sighted individuals.”
When referencing a hosted Yeerk, priority should be given to any usage the Yeerk has publically identified with, followed by that of their most prominent host, then most recent host.
“Edriss 562 was a Visser of the Yeerk Empire. She held the rank of Visser One during the Yeerk invasion of Earth.”
Having been a Controller is not a sufficient criterion for having one’s own Wikipedia entry. In cases where an individual is notable for reasons unrelated to Yeerk infestation, this should be its own section or subsection in their biography.
Example: Jeremy Jason McCole.
See the talk page for deleted article Hedrick Chapman for an example of what is not a viable Wikipedia article. Iniss 226 is a notable person, because of the role he played in the Animorphs’ espionage and guerilla actions, but attributing his actions to the infested human Chapman is against policy.
this is a bad example because chapman is notable in his own right for trying to sell out the human race, see here
Wikipedia is not for fringe theories. If there is a publically-released document that affirms some of this hearsay, cite it accordingly, otherwise this is defamation.
Tom Berenson is a notable historical figure, sorry.
How so? (Serious question: articles about Jordan and Sara were deleted because they’re not notable in their own right, although they do deserve mention in a biography of Rachel’s early life.)
Jordan and Sara are alive and entitled to a measure of privacy under BLP considerations. Tom is dead and his privacy can’t be violated. Moreover, he was also an enormous motivating force for the Animorphs to originally pursue the war. There are articles about individuals who were, eg, killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor; he’s surely just as significant for his role in precipitating the conflict.
This isn’t a good parallel because most of those people were, eg, awarded the Medal of Honor for actions they took. As tragic and devastating as being an involuntary Controller is, we by definition have no knowledge about them as independent people and it would be inappropriate to assume as much.
I repeat, how is it inappropriate to violate his privacy, he’s dead.
Question, what about Lore David Altman? He achieved prominence as the founder of The Sharing before it was recognized that he was actually Edriss 562. Does that make him non-notable?
Good one. I tend to think yes, actually, that should be merged into the existing article on Edriss, but there are a lot of useful citations in the Altman page that predate public knowledge of Yeerks and the war. I’ve started a conversation on that talk page; in the meantime, someone should start copying the old content over to the relevant subsection of Edriss’ page.
Split from the Tom Berenson convo above—do we have a policy on “former Controller” versus “ex-host” versus “infested person”? If I have to relitigate the “slave is a dehumanizing word so let’s circumlocute it” again…
See the existing talk page for “Controller”.
What about voluntaries?
I think “voluntary Controller” is still an acceptable term, but Human-Yeerk Collaboration needs a rehaul—for one, it should be merged into similar articles about Hork-Bajir, etc.
IMO we should never begin an article with “XYZ was a voluntary Controller during the invasion blah blah” because in many cases we don’t know how voluntary it actually was. People aren’t really going to admit to being collaborators ex post facto, or there were some other complicating factors, etc. I would say “XYZ was a Controller,” and then in the relevant section cite whatever they’ve said about it: “X claimed to enjoy a respectful working relationship with her Yeerk ABC.”
Please remember that guidelines about Fringe Theories also apply to topics related to the Yeerk invasion, etc. Alleged “Seventh Animorph” sightings during the 1998 A-6 Summit are not cited in reputable sources.
Ellimists are a notable topic because of their role in Andalite religion and mythology, and there are ample citations for them (see Comparative Interspecies Mythology and Lore). Claims that Andalite deities or galactic-scale lifeforms intervened in the Yeerk war are not reliable sources.
See this Washington Post oped on how “seer” is an inappropriate term. Toby Hamee and others have made no claim to precognitive powers which is how that word is most commonly used in English, and in practice it promotes speciesism by denigrating most Hork-Bajir as intellectually incompetent. I suggest “leader” or “elder.”
One person’s opinion piece isn’t enough to change contemporary usage. Most Hork-Bajir, in fact, have significantly less capacity for abstract thinking than Hamee, and it’s not offensive to note that. “Elder” is also misleading because Hamee was for many years not regarded as an elder in her tribe—if anything she was a “prodigy” (but I’m not proposing that term either!) If there’s a broader shift in usage among secondary sources, we can change/add redirects, but until then don’t jump the gun.
Can anyone recommend some reliable secondary sources for information related to Leera, Leerans, etc? What we have is fairly thin and hard to cite. I recognize that they don’t have a lot of printed material for obvious reasons, but are there any useful computer recordings or anything?
The footnotes for Cha-Ma-Mib are pretty thorough! I recommend Clear as the Water: Life and Communication on Leera by Ainthe-Ronec-Haliran. City of Worms by Iesha Fuon-child is exhaustive but technical.
andalite science=imperial propaganda
Wikipedia is a place for constructive feedback.
A reminder that by and large, the properties of a non-sentient species related to morphing are not relevant enough to list under their own page. Example: Caterpillar, Starfish. Their introductory paragraphs should link to broad topics such as Metamorphosis and Regeneration, and those can link to Natural morphing and Morpher duplication.
Is this only the case for non-sentient species?
There’s currently a debate on the Skrit Na talk page, related to the Kensill nothlit experiments. Personally I would say we should follow the same policy with them, but that’s not set in silicon.
I found a certificate of name change at the San Diego DMV that says that Naomi Shapiro reverted to her maiden name upon her divorce, page should be moved to Rachel Shapiro or Rachel Berenson-Shapiro.
Wikipedia is not for original research.