Forum:TC:Unidentified Rebel officers

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Unidentified Rebel officers

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 after splitting into individual articles. jSarek 10:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified Rebel officers (talk - history - links - logs)

Listed as a speedy deletion candidate as violating our "no galleries" rule. However, the images in this article are used to specifically illustrate a series of individuals, rather than redundantly illustrating a single subject, so I think a gallery may be OK here. The article also violates our "singular titles for articles" rule in the MoS, but I've always thought of that as being the rule which causes us to title articles "Human" or "Star Destroyer" rather than "Humans" or "Star Destroyers." If we allow an article on a group of people, a plural title would be necessary. One could also argue against the notability of non-speaking unnamed extras, but we have several "Unidentified guy seen for two seconds in Jabba's Palace" articles. So, I don't really think this is necessarily a speedy deletion candidate. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete

  1. My arguments were: Articles about unidentified extras are one thing, but articles about a bunch of unidentified extras? Come on. "Two unidentified Rebels were seen in Massassi Temple", "Three unidentified spacers were seen in Chalmun's Spaceport Cantina", "Twelve unidentified Ewocks were seen in the Bright Tree Village", "Forty unidentified stormtroopers were seen greeting the Emperor on Death Star II", "Twenty Thousands unidenified beings were seen watching the Boonta Eve Podrace"... Where does it end? MauserComlink 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh? Articles about a bunch of unidentified extras seem more legit to me than articles about individual unidentified extras. In most cases, they're simply not notable enough to have their own articles, but they are notable enough to be listed in group articles. As an analogy, we don't have articles for every little slang term used once or twice; rather, we combine them into List of phrases and slang. These characters probably don't deserve their own article (unless and until more information about them becomes known, such as a name), but they are canonical characters and deserve a mention in our encyclopedia. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Should I create Unidenified beings watching the Boonta Eve Podrace then? MauserComlink 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • If it focused on the characters who could be individually identified but were not yet named, that could be made into an article I'd accept (or a handful of stubby articles which could pass current standards.) —Silly Dan (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Per most of Dan's response, but not the part in (parentheses). To me, individual extras are not notable enough for their own article unless unique canonical information about that character (such as a name or backstory) is available. The group article would be fine, but individual articles are not (to me, at least). This might be something that should go to the CT. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Simply because we don't need articles for everything that somehow existed in the Star Wars universe. The content of the article: "Three Human male Rebel officers were among the attendees of the pre-Endor mission briefing aboard Home One." gives a reader no real information about what happened in the Star Wars universe. Furthermore, people likely don't type in "Unidentified Rebel officers" in the search. If there would be some background information, then this would be notable, but currently it just isn't, as well as most articles about unidentified individuals that did nothing except existing in the universe. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    There is no reason why each individual can't have their own individual article. Delete this and create individual articles for each, per the MOS. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete after splitting into individual articles

  1. More formal at best. Graestan(Talk) 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. I could go for a straight delete too. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. I think this is what I meant to vote for. Didn't see this option here. There is no reason why each individual can't have their own individual article. Delete this and create individual articles for each, per the MOS. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jujiggum) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per Tope. CC7567 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Thefourdotelipsis 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Toprawa. Cylka-talk- 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. But how will the articles be named?- Esjs(Talk) 17:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. Per the explanation of 4dot and JMAS. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 02:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 11:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. Articles on individuals should be individual. Group articles on individuals are just silly. Havac 17:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  16. Enochf 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in current form

  1. If we do keep this, it might be worth coming up with some guidelines about what subjects could be allowed this sort of article. (Movies only? Must be seen in the same place during the same scene?) Second choice is delete after splitting. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. See response to Mauser above. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. What Master Jonathan said above. --Golden Monkey 12:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. They're canon and as a result this wiki does not discriminate against lack of notability. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 'em all

  1. On the one hand, they are all proper Star Wars characters, the only difference is that they were not named OOU. On the other, of course, creating indivudual articles for each group of three or four people seems extremely redundant. Because of that, I propose to merge all such extras into one or several articles (based on their allegiance or species, for example). This way, instead of having all these Unidentified Rebel commandos, Unidentified Alliance communications operators, Unidentified Massassi Station controllers, Unidentified Rebel pilots (Arda-2), etc., we will have one Unidentified Rebels article which will contain information on all of them. Same can be done to the individual extra articles, like the Unidentified Weequay thrown out of Sail Barge (heh, what's next, Unidentified Guy Looking out of the Window on Coruscant?). Of course, if the unidentified person is notable enough and there is at least a bit of information other than where the person was seen, it will deserve its own article. QuiGonJinnThere's always a bigger fish. 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    We tried doing something like that that a long time ago with vehicles and starships, but the article became a complete mess. (Actually, it was an incomplete mess, since not all unidentified vehicles appeared on the list. But it was a mess.) As I recall, it was subdivided and deleted. It seems to me that such articles would need to be of reasonably limited scope to be any use at all: I'd consider "unidentified members of the Rebel Alliance participating in the Battle of Endor" to be close to the upper limit, but that's just my opinion. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    Dan speaks truth. I remember working on those articles which were essentially glorified lists. They were quickly deleted because I and a couple others eventually took the time to split them all out at the suggestion of the admins. It was a real pain, as well, because we had five or six of the same article in some cases because the merging was not done properly to begin with. I fear that might happen again. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

The following articles could be TC'd for similar reasons, and whatever we do with this article might need to be done to them:

  • Unidentified Rebel commandos
  • Unidentified Alliance communications operators (SWHS characters)
  • Unidentified Massassi Station controllers
  • Unidentified Rebel pilots (Arda-2) (comic characters, not movie characters)
  • Unidentified Rebel mechanics
  • Unidentified Rebel dignitaries (male), Unidentified Rebel dignitaries (female), and the 100% redundant article Unidentified Rebel dignitaries
  • Unidentified Selkath Padawans (novel characters)
  • Gar Stazi's bodyguards (Comics) (added by NaruHina)
  • Unidentified Green Squadron A-wing pilots
  • Unidentified New Republic Senators (Reference book characters)
  • Three stormtroopers (8,000 BBY) (comic characters)
  • Glah Ubooki (RPG characters who are practically indistinguishable IU)

There are probably more. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Currently, is there any way of finding unnamed extras from the films? Is there a category for them, etc? --Eyrezer 05:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've always just used the appearance lists for the films themselves. Seems to work. Thefourdotelipsis 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Something like the participants list for the Battle of Endor article, or another article on an event unidentified characters participated in, would also work (either for individual or combined articles on these extras.) I'm less concerned about these articles being hard to find than I am about the proliferation of permanently stubby "This guy stood next to Lando one time" articles. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • So would the results of this apply to those articles as well? Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I only explicitly put the TC tag on the other article marked CSD at the time, but we may as well take this as a precedent for similar articles. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)