Hello there! Star Wars: Card Trader has multiple cards dedicated to no-name characters from the Star Wars: Visions series. I brought this up in the Wookieepedia Discord server a couple months ago after I created the article Unidentified Twi'lek Crystal City inhabitant (Rutian) based on one of several cards dedicated to Crystal City residents from "The Pit" created by Rejean Dubois and Arthell Isom via the episode's concept art gallery. Recently, the topic has resurfaced as a card was discovered dedicated to an unnamed Clabronian Jedi Master from the short "Journey to the Dark Head" that lacked notability in the short itself. I'm sure there could be other non-Visions examples out there too.
I personally believe that characters that receive dedicated cards to themselves should be eligible for articles. However, this poses an obvious problem of random clones and battle droids receiving articles. I believe something along the lines of "having a card dedicated to a character identifiable in their originating work." could be added to the notability policy. It could also be reworded to include merchandise of characters otherwise unnotable. Let me know what you think and how it could best be worded to avoid hundreds of no-name clone/battle droids being created!
Discuss
- There's nothing really forbidding these characters getting articles in the first place. An appearance in a TV show and a card dedicated to showing their design off, seems good to me to make their articles now. Any disagreements can and should be discussed and eventually TCed if needed. But adding the clause to policy could possibly have negative side effects, like a single non-notable stormtrooper getting a card and now they get a page. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 13:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, I just want to gather some sort of consensus before putting valuable time into these. They are also all present in multiple scenes across the short. Such as the Twi'lek article I created above. They may be background characters, but they each have thought put into their designs and are consistent throughout the short. Mor9347
(Talk) 14:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, I just want to gather some sort of consensus before putting valuable time into these. They are also all present in multiple scenes across the short. Such as the Twi'lek article I created above. They may be background characters, but they each have thought put into their designs and are consistent throughout the short. Mor9347
- Er, imo, these are in no way more notable than any battle droid or clone trooper would be... These are literally simply background characters, them having an official image (in the form of a card) does not give them any more inherent notability. Imperators II(Talk) 13:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I fully get this opinion, I just believe that the thought put into their designs means something. See my points above as well, I forgot to mention in the initial paragraphs, but they're each consistent and have minor roles. Even if they are background characters, I believe they're different from generic clones, droids, or stormtroopers because of those points. Mor9347 (Talk) 14:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I fully get this opinion, I just believe that the thought put into their designs means something. See my points above as well, I forgot to mention in the initial paragraphs, but they're each consistent and have minor roles. Even if they are background characters, I believe they're different from generic clones, droids, or stormtroopers because of those points. Mor9347
- I'm admittedly indifferent to the topic. I understand why people would want this, but I also see the point to not do it per Imp. That said..if the proposal does have interests, I think it's worth considering and setting up proper plans to avoid abuse and misuse from it, which I can see very easily happening per Dani's point (beyond the trooper arguments). Bonzane10 14:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- In total agreement with Bonzane on this. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- In total agreement with Bonzane on this. - JMAS
- Maybe not for individual pages. This would go well with a grouping "Unnamed Individuals" page similar to what is done on other Wikis. I pushed for that years ago, just so if a Star Wars writer is fascinated by an unnamed character or location or vehicle etc they could just go to this one. I still believe it is a very very VERY good idea. Others disagree. - Noash Retrac (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Individual articles for these guys would be fine by me—they shouldn't be copy-paste articles because there's plenty in just their clothing that a proper comprehensive article should try to describe in detail in prose. These illustrations aren't the same as random B1s and stormtroopers, for which I would oppose, but I don't think trying to pre-empt overreach (which could just be TC'd as Dani said) is worth the trouble of coming up with a clause that suits both every case and everyone :P OOM 224 11:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't think most of these broach notability, Imperators kinda sums up my feelings on this. Fan26 (Talk) 10:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
