Forum:TC:Unidentified Iotran bounty hunter

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Unidentified Iotran bounty hunter

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. --Imperialles 04:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified Iotran bounty hunter (talk - history - links - logs)

This character is an example bounty hunter template from the old WEG RPG rulebook. I'm not sure that we can count sample character templates as unidentified but canonical characters. I suppose this one has a better claim to sticking around, since it's not a completely generic template like "Ewok" or "Smuggler", and it doesn't seem to be linked to a specific example character (like half of the templates in Heroes and Rogues). Still, I'm not sure that he's a specific canonical character. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping

  1. I believe this character's article should be kept for several reasons.
    • 1)This "character template" is should be, in reality, called an "Undeveloped character" because that is what he is. If you take as an example, the "character archetypes" that are used on the later WOTC game-books, you can clearly see that those aren’t really characters. On WOTC books, the archetypes don't have backstories of their own, they have no images, they have no specified gender or race, they have no personality section, they have no individual quotes. In the WOTC books, Character archetypes (Like the Bounty Hunter archetype) are just a game reference for GMs and players to create quick characters. However, on the WEG game-books, the "Character Templates" have everything I mentioned above and more! They have individuality. While WOTC gives a general description of what a Bounty Hunter is, WEG provides a small description of a nameless Bounty Hunter individual. An individual who is worthy of a wookieepedia article.
    • 2)I believe this character background and personality information are canon. Just as, for instance, Jaden Korr's backstory story is canon, but his face, lightsaber color and clothes are not. This character is to be used in a game by a player that chooses him, this player will pick up on what's established and take the character into new directions making original decisions and participating on different adventures. He is no different than Jaden Korr, with the only difference is that one is infinitely more famous and has been referenced in other works.
    • 3)The information available for this character allows for a pretty long-ish article. This is not a "This Iotran Hunter, existed." sort of article. It has quite a lot of licensed information in it.
    • 4)This article is interesting. WEG "Character templates" are chock-full of interesting characters with not well-known professions and dramatic life-stories. I think that this article and other that mirror it, would be a very good addition to Wookieepedia. They treat little known species and professions, they have quotes and images. Denying this articles the chance to be, would be a pity. In my opinion. Carlitos Moff 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The "interesting and specific" information in this article—which looks actually fairly general to me—is all drawn from the template itself, which is providing suggestions for playing the character. An experienced WEG RPG player (and I assume also WOTC) knows that he/she can choose to have an Iotran bounty hunter character who has no qualms at all about taking whatever work he can get, or that he prefers not to solve problems with fighting, despite what the template suggests. The character need not even be Iotran, as the Tirog example below clearly indicates. In that sense, then, it is not equivalent to Jaden Korr. The choices you make in-game about Korr have very, very limited impact on that character's story. The Iotran bounty hunter has no story until the GM gives him one, and even his backstory is 100% malleable because everything in the template is suggestions. Asserting that this is a specific individual is exactly counter to what the game designers intended. Gonk (Gonk!) 11:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. There seems to be sufficient specific info to keep. --Eyrezer 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Goodwood that there are some precedents, but as Carlitos Moff shows, this is distinct enough both in more-than-likely canon information and as a real-world template that appears to be a character on its own, that I have to vote to keep it. Wildyoda 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It is no more a character on its own than the "COMPNOR Military Liaison," "Disgraced House Guardsman," "Freeworlds Artist," or "Mrlssti Roving Entertainer" templates in the back of the Player's Guide to Tapani. Articles on each of those nonspecific character suggestions will be necessary by precedent if this article is kept. Gonk (Gonk!) 11:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Keep till we find out if he's a specific character or not. Appearing in a canon source, he must be canonical at some level. KEJ 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion

  1. Per my nomination reasons. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. There are precedents for character templates becoming articles, but only after said templates are later used as bases for actual characters. As this one has none, it should get nuked.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 01:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. And the template wouldn't be the article, the character would be. In this case, just because it has a race doesn't make him a canonical character; it's not at all uncommon for the RPG (well, WEG, anyway) to have sample character classes that happen to involve a specific species. Gonk (Gonk!) 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per Silly Dan. Graestan(Talk) 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. That'd be about as silly as having a Rebel Princess article. Bahleete. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. The templates are specifically NOT a particular individual existant in Star Wars, but rather a representative collage of what a character of the given template might be like. There were LOTS of Iotran bounty hunters; the template doesn't represent a specific one, but rather is a starting point for players to create one for themselves. Yes, some hunter probably had a knack for brawling when young, some hunter probably hoped to get rich before dying on a contract, and some hunter probably said "he'd better not die. He's worth a lot ot me alive." That doesn't mean they were all the SAME bounty hunter. jSarek 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per jSarek. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per The Sarek. Unit 8311 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Agreed that is has sticking value, as it more specific than, say, "Brash pilot," or "Imperial Admiral." Nevertheless, as what JS says, it doesn't appear to be linked to any specific individual, but a class of beings in general - Iotran bounty hunters. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Per jSarek. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per jSarek. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for doing something else

Argument against moving it to Tirog

  • When looking at my 2nd Ed. D6 SWRPG book, it occurred to me that the example character Tirog is apparently based on the same "bounty hunter" template used as a source for this article. Gonk tells me that the 2nd. Ed. Rev. book identifies Tirog as a Human, so I guess we can't do that with this article. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • A possible compromise idea I just thought of: all the WEG character templates are included in canonical sources, even if they're not specific characters, per se, so we should probably have that info on this site in some form. So what if we create articles for each character template, clearly marked as such? They wouldn't be standard character articles, though they might be categorized with them; this way, we'd still have information about the templates without having to worry about whether a template was meant to represent a specific individual or not. I don't know how we'd go about making them in-universe, but if push came to shove, we could just make them OOU articles. Thoughts? jSarek 21:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, we don't do articles (or lists or whatever) on game mechanics. Character templates are game mechanics, no matter how much flavor text accompanies them. Much of this content could be merged with Iotran, maybe. Gonk (Gonk!) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Now that IS a great idea jSarek! My main beef against having this deleted, is not the fact that I think wether UIBH is a real canon character or not. In reality I don't care about that. What I do care is that valuable information like the one on this article and possible new others like COMPNOR SAGroup youth, Imperial adjuntant, Interestellar transient, Quarren swindler or Rodian dramatist is not left out of our Encyclopedia. I think jSarek idea is the one we should follow on this case. Carlitos Moff 06:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
        • As I told Carlitos Moff in IRC, this is a good article and if we had articles on templates, it would be what we'd want. But templates are game mechanics, no different from if we started putting "Damage: 4D" in the infobox for Blaster pistol. That's "valuable information" too, but it doesn't belong on Wookieepedia. Same thing with cheat codes on every video game article. There is legitimate IU content within some WEG templates, but it can be included in the relevant articles that already exist (such as adjutant). However, unless someone here is prepared to challenge our rule about game mechanics, this article and any others created in its style belong at the SWGames wiki, or maybe Merch, but not here. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Another reason I'm wary of setting a precedent here is that we have several WEG NPCs who exist primarily as worked examples of character templates (Voegliss, Veedo Vaocan, Blaine Hansom, "Ace", etc.) Would we still want articles on "Unidentified Imperial assassin-in-training", "Unidentified Rodian pacifist", "Unidentified smuggler", "Unidentified kid", etc.? Maybe we only want them for templates which can't be matched to a named character, but some templates are vague enough that we might argue over which character constitutes a named example. Plus, we already have Chandrex Grenn and Rodick Tag, both of whom are Iotran bounty hunters who might at some point in their career have matched this template exactly. —Silly Dan (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If we were to create template articles, then yes, because most of those characters are assuredly NOT the same as the templates - compare Veedo Vaocan with the Rodian Pacifist template, for instance (and then once you do, you can help me defend the Vaocan article from the persistent fanon of adding the Pacifist's image to his page). In the case of the Smuggler template and Blaine Hansom, again it's not so easy, since Roark Garnet has also used that template (or at least the image from it), showing that even where we have specific examples for templates, they are still generic and might apply to other characters, as well. jSarek 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Hold on, you believe the pacifist image should not be added to Veedo Vaocan? --Eyrezer 13:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Vaocan is a serious-seeming doctor with one antenna. The default pacifist is a loopy space hippy who doesn't start play with any serious injuries. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Exactly, along with a few other details of their backstories (Vaocan had no choice in leaving Rodia, for example). There's a REASON I keep removing that picture from Vaocan's article, and keep adding ever more exasperated comments in the comment area. ;-) jSarek 13:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • So uh... I am kinda lost here. What do we do now? Start a CT? Are we going to star creating articles on WEG Character templates or not? Who's going to decide that? Carlitos Moff 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not closing this, since I'm the one who started it, and consensus isn't crystal clear. However, it looks to me that (a) the people who want to treat this and every other WEG character template as a specific, canonical, but unidentified individual are in a minority, and (b) the people who don't want the article in its current form are divided on jSarek's proposal for OOU or semi-IU articles on WEG templates. (Doesn't the WOTC RPG have similar nameless sample characters?) I would suggest that some other admin could close this discussion and start a new one, either in the CT or in this TC thread, on what to do with such potential articles, but someone else may have different ideas. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I created a CT thread on this, but I'm not going to close this one yet, because depending on the outcome of the CT, we may still need to decide what to do with this article. Nevertheless, for now I encourage followers of this thread to head over to Forum:Articles on RPG character templates. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)