Forum:CT:Anonymous stormies

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Anonymous stormies

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was no consensus. Graestan(Talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


As said on the other forum, I have recently created five or six new anonymous stormtrooper articles based on the Anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper article. As Chack said, we need a vote on how these anon stormtroopers articles are allowed. We need to tighten our policy on what kind of anonymous characters we can add. Should the anon stormies by kept or deleted? And if so, should we tighten our policy? You decide.—Darthtyler Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the articles and allow all anonymous articles

  1. —Darthtyler Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Of course. -- Ozzel 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. I'd say you're violating WP:POINT, except you're utterly failing to make a point. Darth Culator (Talk) 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    How am I violating POINT? I am going to say this one last time: I read the further discussion on the forum, and I changed my mind.—Darthtyler Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Something that has a name might well have done a lot less than something without one. Name based keepage = Bleh. Thefourdotelipsis 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. "Let's exclude canon information because no one bothered to give a character a name." What the hell? Havac 02:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kuralyov 02:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Canon. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 04:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep, it's Canon, so it stays. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep... canon... KEJ 10:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Michaeldsuarez Infinite Empire (Activate Holocron) 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. If the characters are canon, they should be kept. After all, Wookiepedia is supposed to offer everything about the Star Wars universe, and that would include all characters.Jedi Master Chief 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete them and tighten the policy

  1. But merge relevant information to articles on whatever unit they were with/events they participated in/etc. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Imperialles 23:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Silly Dan. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. The articles are useless if they can't be found. Better to create a list with these unnamed guys then let users dungeon crawl through unhelpful categories hunting for what they're looking for. jSarek 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Already tried that, but everyone hated the idea.—Darthtyler Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 04:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Correction: Two people hated the idea. Two people is most assuredly not an "everyone." jSarek 07:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per jSarek. Also, I don't believe they should remain unless the character either has a line or does something (or has something done to them) notable.—Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. JSarek says it well. As does Silly Dan. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per Silly Dan and jSarek. JMAS 06:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Indubitably. - Lord Hydronium 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per SillyDan and jSarek. It's not total deletion this way. FWIW, this seems to be how Memory Alpha does it. Gonk (Gonk!) 11:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. We can still have a lot of really minor stormie articles, but I don't want to see a dozen articles for the platoon Han runs into and so forth. -LtNOWIS 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. If it's only minor things like this, I'm in. I presume articles could still be created, but only if they contained useful info. Captain Daal Imperial Emblem 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. I am not opposed to articles of unnamed characters that definitely deserve articles. But the dude who gets thrown by Chewbacca for a second of on-screen time just... just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. It's not encyclopedic. --Danik Kreldin 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. This information needs to be kept. It is canon. There should be no doubt whatsoever about that; however, in it's current state (and location), it does little more than add to Wookieepedia's overall article count. As such, I am against both keeping the information at it's current article location and deleting the facts altogether. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm against deleting the information as well, as I think are most of the "delete" voters. We object to the organization, not the content (where there IS content, at any rate). jSarek 07:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Xwing. Unit 8311 12:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

We don't need to tighten the policy, as you say in the preamble. I just happen to think we should. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not so sure this is the way to do this. Rather, I think someone who feels such articles have no place here should determine a set of In-Universe notability rules. -- Ozzel 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting we close this thread and start a new one where we propose some set of rules? Perhaps SparqMan can come up with some? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps. Like we were saying in IRC, the only problem with troopers is that we often can't differentiate between them. A trooper who does this here might also be the one who does that there. If we could come up with a rule that left room for logic in determining if a trooper is likely different than any other trooper, I'd be satisfied. -- Ozzel 23:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • See, rules for this sort of thing are tough. There are always conjecture characters who are important, and it's hard to draw boundaries. Also, I think another thread about a set of rules, in addition to, rather than instead of this one would be a good idea. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
          • We should keep some things without a name, just not a bunch of stormtroopers that happened to do nothing. There's not notable enough. If we keep these, we could create hundreds more articles on battle droids, stormtroopers, rebel soldiers, Wookiee soldiers, etc. Chack Jadson (Talk) 12:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Please, can we stop with the slippery slopes already? You're trying to tell me that a guy who has more film dialogue than Raymus Antilles, who is stationed on the Death Star, sends two crewmen to their deaths on a ship that would soon destroy the Empire's superweapon and save the galaxy... does nothing? He's non-notable and doesn't deserve an article? While DV-523 does? It makes no sense. -- Ozzel 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
              • I guess "has dialogue" should be added to any notability criteria for characters, if we decide to develop any. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
                • That wouldn't be valid. LFL makes figures of hundreds of beings that have never said anything and yet we have their articles because they are popularized. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
                • Right, just look at all of the cantina characters that never said anything. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (starting a new asterisk) Ozzel: He wasn't the one who sent TK-421 and 422 in there did he? I thought he sent the scanning crew onboard.—Darthtyler Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 04:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you're right; I was mixing the crewmen up with the troopers. Anyway: Dan, I am about to start a notability proposal, and dialogue will be a part of it—not as a requirement for notability, but rather one factor that grants it. -- Ozzel 05:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright. But my Unnamed Stormtrooper (Death Star hallway) has no notability whatsoever, though a recurring joke among fans.—Darthtyler Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As it happens, all the anonymous stormies have some sort of notability. Either IU by interacting with other characters, even having a couple of lines, or OU by having a special status among the fans. KEJ 10:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, to respond to Riff's point earlier, nobody is saying we should get rid of people just because they don't have dialogue. It's long been accepted that we have an article for every named individual. But if we're going to refrain from including every little background character, than dialogue could be another way to achieve notability. Because the most controversial unnamed characters, IMHO, are the ones that don't do anything whatsoever for the plot and don't have a name or a bio or anything. They just appear in the background and do nothing. Because if we keep articles like Unnamed Koorivar, we'll have to include everyone to ever appear in a frame of film or a comic panel. --LtNOWIS 05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It may be true that many unnamed individuals say nothing or do nothing, however they still exist in the galaxy. LFL always has something up their sleeve regarding characters, just look at the EU. Additionally, it was my goal to create the ultimate SW resource. Minutia makes us different. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
        • No one is saying get rid of the information on the minutia. What we want is the minutia to be easily locatable, and articles are not the best way to do this. jSarek 05:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A somewhat new sub-topic: if this goes through, it doesn't actually mean we'll have to delete all articles with conjecture name, does it? There are some unnamed characters and objects that are, well, perhaps not major, but it'd hurt us if they had to go. I can think of Giel's battleship and the Obi-Wan Kenobi impersonator for a couple; doubtless there are many more (and better) examples. Captain Daal Imperial Emblem 10:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, those articles contain a fair amount of information about important subjects. They should be kept, as they are definitely more important than "Anonymous stormtrooper 6 (Death Star II)". Chack Jadson (Talk) 14:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Everyone agrees we should keep articles like Obi-Wan Kenobi impersonator and Giel's battleship. "Tighten the standard" just means we'd have some lenient standards. Oh yeah, and responding to Riffsyphon: LFL does have a history of creating names and bios for background characters in films. Not so much for people like this. Unless people are suggesting we have a different standard for the films, this means a simply ridiculous number of articles for background characters in comics. -LtNOWIS 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well if everyone supports keeping the information, the only other thing to do is to merge it all into one of those bloated lists. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's what I thought, I just wanted to be sure. Captain Daal Imperial Emblem 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Articles like these should judged individually. Keep the important ones; delete the meaningless ones. We can't judge all of them as a group. Michaeldsuarez Infinite Empire (Activate Holocron) 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Aren't we forgetting something?? We are creating articles for what we think are individual 'characters' based on their apprearance in one instance. But we don't know whether the stormtrooper that Chewie knocks down the carbon freezing chamber isn't the one who later shoots at Leia -they all look alike!!! All the other individuals; from unnamed Jedi to background aliens we can get away with because they have a singular appearance that we can clearly refer to, but the stormies??? What's next -listing all the clones in the Kaminoan mess hall?Tocneppil 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)