Forum:CT:Articles on soldier types

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Articles on soldier types

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.
This debate was to not merge any of the pages in question in one sweep; cases should be handled individually. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, another bold proposal from Mauser here. Browsing articles in the Category:Soldiers leaved me thinking "WTH?", since most of those articles are simply stubs about different variations of soldiers from various Star Wars videogames. I believe than even though those subjects are mostly canonical and not just game mechanics, they do not deserve to have their own articles. The reason being: they are always part of some military organizations, and while specific ranks and specializations of that organization are notable enough to have an article, every single type of a trooper does not. It's simply unencyclopedic.

Example 1: we have an article Imperial Army. We also have articles like Imperial Army trooper and Imperial Army pilot. But should we have [[Imperial engineer]], [[Imperial missile trooper]], [[Imperial sniper]], [[Imperial scout]], [[AT-ST pilot]] and such? Obviously no, they should be part of the main articles.

Example 2: Empire at War features a variety of ground tropers for both sides. Stormtroopers are... well stormtroopers; but the Rebellion has units called [[Rebel soldier]], [[Rebel Missile trooper]] and [[Rebel Infiltrator]]. Fortunately, Star Wars: Empire at War: Prima Official Game Guide establishes them all as the subdivisions of Alliance Special Forces. Just compare that detailed, well-written and informative artile to what could be "Rebel Missile troopers were used by the Rebel Alliance during the Galactic Civil War. They were armed with missile lauchers that were powerful against Armored vehicles, even such as the AT-AT, but were easily taken down by stormtroopers and TIE maulers." Same could be done for many other game units - describe them from the non-game mechanics POV in the article for their respective organization, not an article under their game name.

So, what exactly do I propose? Get rid of all articles about types of soldiers which can be identified as part of a distinctive organization by merging info in the article about that organization. Let's say Gungan Missile Trooper gets merged with the Gungan Grand Army; Imperial Thermal Detonator Trooper gets merged with the Imperial Army; Zann Consortium Mercenary Assault Squad and Zann Consortium grenadier... well, those two should be just redirected to Zann Consortium 'cause there's nothing to merge. I already one such article at the TC, so if when it passes, it's going to be a precedent for dealing with them in the future. Note, that articles such as Beetle-knight, Mon Calamari Knights or Mandalorian Shocktrooper are already about organizations and would be left untouched. I screwed up with the Gossam Commandos earlier, I won't do the same mistake again: articles about soldier types gets either merged or re-organized into articles about organizations, this is it.

From what I see, Wookieepedia already follows that format with major articles: Emperor's Royal Guard, Imperial Sentinel, Nimbus commando describe the entire organization, not specific soldiers. It's mainly the video game units who would be affected by that change - especially ambigous ones like Imperial worker, Rodian heavy defender and Jedi Sniper. If you have any objections, feel free to post them so we could start a discussion. MauserComlink 20:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In favor

  1. MauserComlink 20:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. Golden Monkey 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Per Mauser. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 06:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. See below. Graestan(Talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No, that sounds to me too much like merging Padawan, Jedi Knight, and Jedi Master into the Jedi Order article. Sure, you can have brief excerpts on them in the main organization's article, but they can still warrant their own pages. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. It seems it little too... selective targeting games for me. If units in novels get an article, then I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for games, unless someone has specifically stated that they're purely game mechanics. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. They deserve their own articles; they are part of the Star Wars universe. And if we redirect to "Imperial Army", the Army's article might not have content about the specific stormtrooper. —Lucius malfoy7 Talk • Reference 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Xwing. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. *Extends ten-foot pole* I just think it's a bit too sweeping. Perhaps more individual calls should be made. Graestan(Talk) 01:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I was originally going to proceed with each case separately in form of a TC and even started a couple, but realised that with a such amount of articles it would be better to reach a community consensus first. If this isn't going to pass, I'll just continue with each one separately as planned, since - face it - some of those simply aren't legitive enough to stay. MauserComlink 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • If that's the plan, I'm all for it, then. Graestan(Talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Based on what Mauser, himself, said directly above, I am not for a general policy. Individual articles may need to be merged. See discussion below. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 16:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Wing. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Soresu and Wing. Cyfiero 05:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. They are notable. Stake black msg 13:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per Xwing328 and Soresumakashi. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 17:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. I agree with those above. I'm all for taking articles to the TC if they are barely-legitimate stubs. In that case, I'd probably vote for deletion or merging if the situation is right. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 20:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Per everyone above. This is a situation where each article needs to be examined individually. Cylka-talk- 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Per XWing. It feels to much like merging the Jedi categories. It wouldn't make sense. MecenarylordEnter if you dare 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. After thinking about it for a while, it would be better to do them one at a time, though the TC is pretty full right now. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

  • I'm Neutral on this because of what Xwing said above, but I really don't care which way it goes. MecenarylordEnter if you dare 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

In responce to Xwing328:

  • Xwing328: As Mauser said, "It's mainly the video game units who would be affected by that change […]" In other words, stuff like he mentioned above, which are mostly game mechanics and contain little or no special info, are what would be merged/redirected. Padawan, Jedi Knight, and Jedi Master would not be affected by this as they contain no game mechanics, but do have lots of detailed info that needs to be mentioned but would be too detailed for the main article. Some things, like the Jedi ranks, warrant their own article, but a lot of stuff doesn't. It's just a matter of deciding what does and what doesn't. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 06:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Let me give an example: Jedi Consular and Jedi Watchman are classes from KOTOR 2, but they have also been referenced in a huge amount of other sources which established their canonicity. Jedi sniper and Jedi brute on the other hand are confirmed to be game mechanics names, no other proof exists that there were ever such classes/ranks amongst the Jedi Order, so they should be treated accordingly. MauserComlink 10:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You might be intending to have it only for game mechanics, but as phrased—"Get rid of all articles about types of soldiers which can be identified as part of a distinctive organization by merging info in the article about that organization."—it would remove stuff like snowtroopers and seatroopers as well. Maybe the initial proposal needs some rephrasing. - Lord Hydronium 22:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Seatrooper redirects to Aquatic assault stormtrooper, which describes the actual subdivision of the Stormtrooper Corps, same could be said for Snowtrooper (although I would argue to move it to the Cold Assault Stormtrooper if that name's canonical). They both describe the very specific sub-organization, which canonicity is unarguable. At the same time Dewback trooper is... a stormtrooper on dewback, that's it. No such subdivision in the Imperial Army, so we should get it. MauserComlink 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
        • They aren't suborganizations, though. Seatroopers and snowtroopers and whatnot are types of specially trained units. - Lord Hydronium 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Anyway, they are units who received special training, has special gear, armor and equpment, which makes them clerly distinctive from our regular "plastic boys". Can we say the same about Anti-air trooper? They are troopers with rocket launchers, great, but nothing else specific could be said about them (I suspect most of the current article content to be OR). Should any trooper with a new weapon have it's own article? MauserComlink 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
            • No, not every trooper with a new weapon should have their own article. But keep in mind that we don't always have sufficient knowledge to exactly determine whether a trooper variant is an actually a canonical unit or simply game mechanics. Cyfiero 05:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In responce to Soresumakashi:

  • It;s going to affect game units especially, not specifically. For example, the only time Ashern Commandos are mentioned in the X-Wing: The Bacta War, the second word isn't capitalized and therefore, it's not a name of the organization. Unlike Gossam Commandos (capitalized in Shadowfeed), they aren't members of the organization called "Ashern Commandos", they're just that - Ashern Commandos. MauserComlink 07:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I see the point you're getting at, but you're pretty much saying that we should start judging canon based on capitalisation right? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 23:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, in this particular case, yes. If that name is capitalized, then is't a proper noun and definitely desrves an article here. If it isn't, then it's simply a noun with adjective and falls under Gamorrean guard precedent. MauserComlink 07:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Lucius malfoy7:

  • Rodian pirates are part of GFFA as well, yet they do not have their own article, since they are not an organization, but simply Rodian pirates. Also, be sure that when it comes to specialized clone troppers and strormtroopers, no information will be lost. Those of them with special training, armor and equipment are described in various non-fiction sources as being members of military / Navy sub-organizations, so our beloved Imperial Jumptrooper and Clone naval officer will undoubtedly stay. It will be different for, let's say, Advanced Recon Commando pilot and Imperial heavy weapons specialist though. The first one is simply Advanced Recon Commando pilot, and while the article about ARC's themselves is absolutely needed here, articles about Advanced Recon Commando captain, Advanced Recon Commando sniper and such are not. The second one does not even go by canon name, 'cause soldiers in BF games are called shock troopers in both games themselves and Prima Guides, so this conjectural name has to go.
Another example: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (video game) features such enemies as Neimoidian brutes, Neimoidian Commanders, Neimoidian Guards, Neimoidian snipers and Neimoidian warriors among others. The community recently voted to merge those smaller subjects into the main Neimoidian Gunnery Battalion article. Because really, we wouldn't have an article about Neimoidian Gunnery Battalion warrior, Neimoidian Gunnery Battalion sniper, Neimoidian Gunnery Battalion commander and so on, would we? And yet I see many other articles which are as useless as those listed above used to be, Muun guard, Geonosian elite and Dragon trooper to name a few. While I am going to put most of them on TC and then merge into general articles anyway, I would like to see a policy that would prevent such specific articles, most though not all of which are simply game mechanics, from being ever created in the future. MauserComlink 11:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More thoughts form IthinkIwannaLeia

  • I believe that we have just discovered an example of when using the Wikipedia def. of "stub" is useful. Wikipedia bases their "stubs" on lenghth and notworthiness. Here at wwookieepedia, we make articles for everything, no matter how unnoteworthy (see my suggestions on changing the def of stub for us in the forums). Stubs are merged or deleted. In this case, since we have several short articles about types of soldiers that are related to each other, they can be merged. Different videogame characters can be subsections in bigger articles. For things like "rodian heavy trooper" and "rodian light trooper" they can be merged into one Rodian Warrior article. Now some of the specialized stromtrooper/clone troopers will need to remain their own articles since there is so much info about some that they warrant their own article. These mergers should be suggested (or just done if really obvious) on an individual basis. Several stub articles that are directly related to one another and less related to other articles, should obviously be merged...no questions asked. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The trick is, articles like Rodian warrior should not exist in the first place and were being purged before I even got here. If there is an organization full of Rodian warriors (like Drexl Roosh's gang) then it should redirect there, if not - simply to the Rodian article. Because otherwise we would face neccessity to create articles for Rodian scavenger, Rodian bounty hunter, Rodian pirate, Rodian thief, Rodian mercenary, Rodian diplomat, Rodian scientist etc. It's simply not encyclopedic to have articles on such things. These are the kind of articles I intend to purge - nothing else. MauserComlink 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Point taken on the Rodian Warrior. Unless a culture is war like and has a specialized cast (Vong warrior perhaps?), it is just an occupation and the name of the species in it. But my main point still stands that it might be hard to make an all encompassing policy. I think what we are doing now (finding stupid game mechanics based articles and throwing them in the TC) is the best way to go. There can't be that many. No need for policies that have the risk of being exclusionistic. Specialized warriors/trooper units (e.g. EVO troopers) should keep their own articles (or subsections of a larger article. If you try to merge all the different stormtrooper and clonetroopers into one article that would suck. Anytime we talk about deleting an article we should do it on an individual basis for 2 reasons: 1. Somebody worked hard on it and it should be discussed before we destroy it. 2. Once an article is deleted, the info can't even be found in the history unless your an admin, so we have to be sure. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 00:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Point taken as well. I think I'll have to TC them one by one after all. MauserComlink 10:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A question from QuiGon

  • I believe you actually have a point there, but I would like to ask what guideline or policy will such a change affect? AFAIK, we currently don't have any policy on what is worth creating and what is not, at least I haven't seen any. I think we should discuss the subject of notability in general and establish some kind of guideline first, or there will be no way of notifying people of the results of this CT. QuiGonJinnThere's always a bigger fish. 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)