Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Unidentified bounty hunter (Level 1313)
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 or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. 1358 (Talk) 16:36, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Unidentified bounty hunter (Level 1313) (talk - history - links - logs)
This is a classic example of people creating articles for things which are only unidentified because the article creator was too impatient to wait for further details to be revealed, specifically the very name of the character. It's highly unlikely that the character will remain unidentified when the game is released, so I suggest deleting the article until the name is actually known. At least then we'll have an article like "Bob McBountyhunter was a guy who did stuff that's not yet been revealed" instead of "Bounty hunter whose name hasn't been revealed yet did stuff which also hasn't been revealed".
Delete
- As nominator. -- I need a name (Complain here) 12:57, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Extremely premature. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 13:33, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Just to elaborate a bit—while I can't wait to fill out an actual article on this character, I think it's pretty dumb to have an article on it now, when we know nothing, essentially. Based on what we currently know, this is a completely and utterly non-notable subject. It would make as much sense to create a page called "Unidentified Coruscant building" for the ledge he's standing on in the one picture we have, because we know the exact same amount about both: squat. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 16:27, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, that's not entirely the case: we actually know a fair amount about this guy. We know his profession. Some would argue, per the duck test, that this guy is Human, and we know he has dark hair and fair skin. We know some of the clothing he wore. We know he used exotic weapons. We know he operated in the underworld of the planet Coruscant, namely Level 1313, at one point in time. We know that, while there, he uncovered a criminal conspiracy. That's a lot more than we know about a lot of other characters out there. (Those are just a handful of links I came up with quickly from the CA page; there are countless others.) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:19, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Just to elaborate a bit—while I can't wait to fill out an actual article on this character, I think it's pretty dumb to have an article on it now, when we know nothing, essentially. Based on what we currently know, this is a completely and utterly non-notable subject. It would make as much sense to create a page called "Unidentified Coruscant building" for the ledge he's standing on in the one picture we have, because we know the exact same amount about both: squat. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 16:27, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Keep
- We should keep it because when the actual game comes out, we can rename the article and add more details. We already know this character is the main one, so what's the point of deleting this article and making a new one on the exact same topic? --Video Gamer1 13:15, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Because when the character is eventually named, I can guarantee that someone will come to the wiki looking for info. They'll type in the name and see that there seemingly isn't an article, so they'll make a new one. Then someone else will notice we already have the same article at Unidentified bounty hunter (Level 1313) and we'll go through the usual rigmarole of merging/moving. At no point will the creator of the properly named article bother looking through all the random unidentified articles we have, and why should they? What purpose does this article serve, other than to exist just because it can? Except it can't even do that properly, since the very first thing that's needed to create a wiki article is a name, so we have to cheat our way around it and declare the character unidentified out of ignorance and impatience. -- I need a name (Complain here) 14:52, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Except that (1) when the character is eventually named, I guarantee you we will move the article immediately to its appropriate name, as we have done in the past for other "unidentified" subjects. And there should be no amount of "rigamarole" at all; it's really a very simple function of the wiki to move a page. Your whole "someone's going to come looking for the article after its named and we won't have the information" is a completely invalid argument for two reasons: first, with our round-the-clock user-base, we're more than likely to move it first; and second, someone is just as likely to want to look up info about the bounty hunter now, so we might as well present what info we do have now. As to the argument about people not going to look up the unidentified name—of course they won't, but again: that's never stopped us from creating unidentified articles in the past, and people very well might be pleased to find a link for this guy on the Star Wars: 1313 article. I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again: we exist to present every single piece of canon information about Star Wars. This is canon information about Star Wars. By neglecting to create this article, we are neglecting to do our job. And I'll say this again, too: if we can't have articles like this, then nor can we have articles like this or this—because for all intents and purposes, we already know just as much about this bounty hunter as we do about those characters. Also, to your argument about unique info below: unique info we already have about this guy includes his appearance, the fact that he uses exotic weapons, and the fact that he uncovers a criminal conspiracy. That's more unique info than we have about a lot of other unidentified characters. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:15, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the mess people managed to make of moving various ships which were identified in The Essential Guide to Warfare, I sincerely doubt the ability of people here to move pages properly. But it's OK, we can all sit around and babysit assorted unnecessary articles for future characters, it's not like we have other things to be doing on the wiki. You're right on track about documenting canon though. Your two examples of unidentified characters are a perfect example of this. It's a canonical fact that neither of them are identified in their appearances. Unlike this bounty hunter, however, their appearances have actually been released and it's easy to verify that they are not, in fact, named. The only basis for saying that this bounty hunter isn't named is because people are too impatient to wait for their first and only confirmed appearance to be released and name them. There's no canonical basis for saying this character is either named or unidentified, and no name = no article. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:18, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how this point still hasn't gotten across, but no name has never ever been equated to no article. This guy existed. He has an appearance we can describe. He has taken actions which we can describe, and as more information becomes released with the release of the game itself, we'll be able to add to it. That's how we do things here. We don't neglect to make articles just because we don't know everything about the characters yet; we never have, and I doubt we ever will. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:35, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Literally no name. As in, not a single alphanumerical character used in the title. Not a conjectural name in lieu of a name, a blank void where a name should be. I'm well aware we have articles for things which aren't identified. I'm well aware that this character has done stuff. I have made no argument against either of those. My objection is that rather than patiently waiting for the game to be released and the character likely named, you want to jump the gun and speculatively declare the character to be unidentified, out of nothing more than personal ignorance, just so we can have an article right this very second. As far your claims that that's how we do things here and you doubt it will be different, see my comment in the discussion section below. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:58, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how this point still hasn't gotten across, but no name has never ever been equated to no article. This guy existed. He has an appearance we can describe. He has taken actions which we can describe, and as more information becomes released with the release of the game itself, we'll be able to add to it. That's how we do things here. We don't neglect to make articles just because we don't know everything about the characters yet; we never have, and I doubt we ever will. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:35, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the mess people managed to make of moving various ships which were identified in The Essential Guide to Warfare, I sincerely doubt the ability of people here to move pages properly. But it's OK, we can all sit around and babysit assorted unnecessary articles for future characters, it's not like we have other things to be doing on the wiki. You're right on track about documenting canon though. Your two examples of unidentified characters are a perfect example of this. It's a canonical fact that neither of them are identified in their appearances. Unlike this bounty hunter, however, their appearances have actually been released and it's easy to verify that they are not, in fact, named. The only basis for saying that this bounty hunter isn't named is because people are too impatient to wait for their first and only confirmed appearance to be released and name them. There's no canonical basis for saying this character is either named or unidentified, and no name = no article. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:18, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Except that (1) when the character is eventually named, I guarantee you we will move the article immediately to its appropriate name, as we have done in the past for other "unidentified" subjects. And there should be no amount of "rigamarole" at all; it's really a very simple function of the wiki to move a page. Your whole "someone's going to come looking for the article after its named and we won't have the information" is a completely invalid argument for two reasons: first, with our round-the-clock user-base, we're more than likely to move it first; and second, someone is just as likely to want to look up info about the bounty hunter now, so we might as well present what info we do have now. As to the argument about people not going to look up the unidentified name—of course they won't, but again: that's never stopped us from creating unidentified articles in the past, and people very well might be pleased to find a link for this guy on the Star Wars: 1313 article. I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again: we exist to present every single piece of canon information about Star Wars. This is canon information about Star Wars. By neglecting to create this article, we are neglecting to do our job. And I'll say this again, too: if we can't have articles like this, then nor can we have articles like this or this—because for all intents and purposes, we already know just as much about this bounty hunter as we do about those characters. Also, to your argument about unique info below: unique info we already have about this guy includes his appearance, the fact that he uses exotic weapons, and the fact that he uncovers a criminal conspiracy. That's more unique info than we have about a lot of other unidentified characters. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:15, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Because when the character is eventually named, I can guarantee that someone will come to the wiki looking for info. They'll type in the name and see that there seemingly isn't an article, so they'll make a new one. Then someone else will notice we already have the same article at Unidentified bounty hunter (Level 1313) and we'll go through the usual rigmarole of merging/moving. At no point will the creator of the properly named article bother looking through all the random unidentified articles we have, and why should they? What purpose does this article serve, other than to exist just because it can? Except it can't even do that properly, since the very first thing that's needed to create a wiki article is a name, so we have to cheat our way around it and declare the character unidentified out of ignorance and impatience. -- I need a name (Complain here) 14:52, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The information we have about the game clearly states that there will be a bounty hunter (that's a single, identifyable character) doing unique things. We don't delete other articles just because we only have limited information about the subjects—limited information happens all the time. If we delete this because the guy's name isn't yet known and the stuff he did has "not yet been revealed," then why don't we go and delete every other unidentified article for characters about whom we don't yet know everything? That would be adverse to our purpose of documenting all canon information. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:19, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, unique information, other than the character's actual name, which is needed for making an article in the first place. We definitely delete speculatory unidentified articles, we've been doing it since at least season 3 of The Clone Wars, when people were making "Unidentified character I saw in the trailer" articles. The difference is between making an article for a character who's made an appearance and wasn't identified and making an article for a character who hasn't been identified because they haven't made an appearance. If I started making articles for characters from a video game and claimed they were unidentified because I hadn't bothered playing the game, the articles would be rightly deleted. So why is it acceptable to do the same thing with a game we can't possibly play yet? -- I need a name (Complain here) 14:52, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't speculatory; whether or not something is named has never had any effect on whether or not we make an article on it; and this isn't just some random guy created based on a silly claim from someone who hasn't yet played the game—it's hard, concrete, canon material. We obviously can't fill in all the blanks yet, but that's never stopped us before. We just include what info we can, and leave out the rest. Simple. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:19, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so you know for a fact that this character is unidentified then? No? Then it's speculation to say they are. Whether or not something hasn't been named may have no effect on whether we have an article, but whether or not something hasn't even been given the chance to be named certainly does. This is actually worse than someone being too lazy to play the game to find out the character's name, since it's physically impossible for any of us to do so until the game is actually released. As for lack of names for characters who've yet to make an appearance never stopping them from having articles, unidentified pink Twi'lek and unidentified Besalisk Jedi (or whatever they were called) disagree. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:18, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- "Oh, so you know for a fact that this character is unidentified then? No? Then it's speculation to say they are." That's just an argument against all unidentified articles. You take that stance, you're saying we should kill them all. They're what we've use since in place of canon names for years. There are characters all the time who appear in TV shows and books who aren't named, and who have been "given the chance" to be named. And what happens when they're named later? All hell breaks loose and the Wook falls apart? No. Of course not. The articles get moved to the newly given name. Crying out loud. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:35, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- No, it isn't and no, I'm not. The key difference between this so-called unidentified article and those ones is that they're actually unidentified in their appearances, whereas this character is unidentified because their appearance hasn't even been released yet for you to confirm whether they're identified or not. How you keep missing this point is beyond me. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:42, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- …At the risk of repeating myself: You're suggesting that we're calling our unidentified articles canonically unidentified. We do nothing of the sort. "Unidentified" and "unknown" are never allowed in any IU portions of articles, unless we specify to whom the characters or the factoid are unidentified or unknown. The fact is, calling anything unidentified is obviously not canonical, because obviously someone IU might know who the "unidentified" character is—I have yet to run into a canon source that literally says "No one in all of existence knows who this character is." What you're not getting is that us calling this guy's article title "unidentified" is in no way a breach of canon—it just means that we don't know yet. That's how our unidentified articles have always worked. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:23, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I do not want to keep this conversation going, as I believe both sides have presented their cases and the voting should proceed. However, I have one more thing to point out: If we do away with this guy, why not do away with things like Untitled post–Fate of the Jedi series, Untitled Paul S. Kemp duology, and hundreds of other things? These books will no doubt be named sometime soon, so by this reasoning, we should wait until they are named before we create the articles. This bounty hunter and these books are essentially the same when it comes to this.—Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 01:07, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- When I say characters are canonically unidentified, I don't mean that they lack an identify from an IU perspective, I mean they are never identified in the OOU source. Canonically, no-one mentions the characters' names, which makes them factually unidentified to us. You don't know whether this bounty hunter is or isn't identified in the game because it hasn't been released yet for you to check. That means you don't know anything canonically about their name, yet you want to pass this ignorance off as factual. It isn't. You say you don't know yet whether the character is identified or not. Why not? Is it because you haven't played the game yet? If not, why not? To bring up a point I made before, if I told you I was going to make an article about this guy without playing the game because I was too lazy to play it, would you think that's acceptable? No. So why is it acceptable to do the exact same thing when it isn't even possible to play the game? They both lead to the same result, an article that basically says "I don't know and I can't be bothered finding out, but I'm not going to let that get in my way". As for the untitled books, those usually don't actually have a title when they're first mentioned, rather than them having a title and us just not being told it. But I don't know about them either way, which is why I'm not really going to bother commenting on them. Apparently that's a novel concept here. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:58, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I do not want to keep this conversation going, as I believe both sides have presented their cases and the voting should proceed. However, I have one more thing to point out: If we do away with this guy, why not do away with things like Untitled post–Fate of the Jedi series, Untitled Paul S. Kemp duology, and hundreds of other things? These books will no doubt be named sometime soon, so by this reasoning, we should wait until they are named before we create the articles. This bounty hunter and these books are essentially the same when it comes to this.—Cal Jedi
- …At the risk of repeating myself: You're suggesting that we're calling our unidentified articles canonically unidentified. We do nothing of the sort. "Unidentified" and "unknown" are never allowed in any IU portions of articles, unless we specify to whom the characters or the factoid are unidentified or unknown. The fact is, calling anything unidentified is obviously not canonical, because obviously someone IU might know who the "unidentified" character is—I have yet to run into a canon source that literally says "No one in all of existence knows who this character is." What you're not getting is that us calling this guy's article title "unidentified" is in no way a breach of canon—it just means that we don't know yet. That's how our unidentified articles have always worked. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:23, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- No, it isn't and no, I'm not. The key difference between this so-called unidentified article and those ones is that they're actually unidentified in their appearances, whereas this character is unidentified because their appearance hasn't even been released yet for you to confirm whether they're identified or not. How you keep missing this point is beyond me. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:42, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- "Oh, so you know for a fact that this character is unidentified then? No? Then it's speculation to say they are." That's just an argument against all unidentified articles. You take that stance, you're saying we should kill them all. They're what we've use since in place of canon names for years. There are characters all the time who appear in TV shows and books who aren't named, and who have been "given the chance" to be named. And what happens when they're named later? All hell breaks loose and the Wook falls apart? No. Of course not. The articles get moved to the newly given name. Crying out loud. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:35, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so you know for a fact that this character is unidentified then? No? Then it's speculation to say they are. Whether or not something hasn't been named may have no effect on whether we have an article, but whether or not something hasn't even been given the chance to be named certainly does. This is actually worse than someone being too lazy to play the game to find out the character's name, since it's physically impossible for any of us to do so until the game is actually released. As for lack of names for characters who've yet to make an appearance never stopping them from having articles, unidentified pink Twi'lek and unidentified Besalisk Jedi (or whatever they were called) disagree. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:18, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't speculatory; whether or not something is named has never had any effect on whether or not we make an article on it; and this isn't just some random guy created based on a silly claim from someone who hasn't yet played the game—it's hard, concrete, canon material. We obviously can't fill in all the blanks yet, but that's never stopped us before. We just include what info we can, and leave out the rest. Simple. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:19, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, unique information, other than the character's actual name, which is needed for making an article in the first place. We definitely delete speculatory unidentified articles, we've been doing it since at least season 3 of The Clone Wars, when people were making "Unidentified character I saw in the trailer" articles. The difference is between making an article for a character who's made an appearance and wasn't identified and making an article for a character who hasn't been identified because they haven't made an appearance. If I started making articles for characters from a video game and claimed they were unidentified because I hadn't bothered playing the game, the articles would be rightly deleted. So why is it acceptable to do the same thing with a game we can't possibly play yet? -- I need a name (Complain here) 14:52, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think deletion would be averse to our documenting all canon, but since he's been identified as the main character, imagine saying "the main character will be a bounty hunter" in the Star Wars: 1313 article without a link when we have this character depicted already. It just wouldn't feel right. NaruHina Talk
14:23, June 2, 2012 (UTC) - Per Jon. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 15:23, June 2, 2012 (UTC) - Waah? ... Per Jon. (goes back to sleep) Cade Calrayn
15:28, June 2, 2012 (UTC) - 501st dogma(talk) 16:26, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Jon. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 16:29, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Jon. --The Lampshade... (talk) 20:52, June 2, 2012 (UTC)Lamp774
- Per Jugs. Just to add to (or reiterate) what he's already said, this article is canon; it is individual; it is factual. Apart from what others have speculated, I do not believe that this bounty hunter is Boba Fett or any bounty hunter we've seen in the past. StarWars.com has described this bounty hunter as if he's a totally new and unique character. As Jon said, when the character is named, it will require a whole ten seconds to move the article to the actual name. In the meantime, we have an official article on an official character. On the comment of it not having enough information, as Jugs said again, there is unique and separate information pertaining to this character that is not speculation. Also, there are many, many CAs that have less information than this. If they can be Comprehensive articles, why can't this guy just be a regular article? Lastly, also as Jon said, Wookieepedia is a well for every little bit of Star Wars information. With the official announcement of this game coming up, people will expect us to have an article for this guy. From the start, we need to keep up with new material as much as we can.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 22:27, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Where are people getting this idea that I want the article deleted because it isn't long enough or that it doesn't contain enough information or some other misnomer like that? At no point have I mentioned anything about the information in the article. The article could be one sentence long or it could be fifteen paragraphs long, it doesn't matter. I haven't claimed anything in the article is non-canon or non-factual, only its title, because there is no canonical basis whatsoever to claim that this character is unidentified. Ignorance of what happens in the game because it hasn't been released yet is not a valid reason to say they're unidentified. You say you don't believe the character is Boba Fett or anyone else, but how do you know they aren't? Do you have a copy of the game to confirm it either way? Of course you don't, which can only mean you're speculating. Speculation isn't allowed in articles, which means this article would no longer have a title. Without a title, it's physically impossible for the article to exist. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:25, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Jugs above.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 23:36, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- ... In no way addresses what I've said here. But I'm glad you can admit that. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:45, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting ridiculous. The title itself is not saying that this guy is not identified IU. That is not speculation. It just means we don't know his name yet. "Unidentified" is used as a placeholder here, for when an official source has not yet provided us with an actual name. That is precisely the case here. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:25, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you know his name yet? Why do we need a placeholder? Maybe the reason an official source hasn't provided a name yet is because you haven't actually bothered waiting for it to be released and do so. Why do we need the article right this very second instead of waiting until the name is actually known? What purpose does it serve to readers, other than to say "I don't know either". Meanwhile, Cal Jedi still hasn't answered why his belief that this character isn't a previously existing one should be considered factual. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:58, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting ridiculous. The title itself is not saying that this guy is not identified IU. That is not speculation. It just means we don't know his name yet. "Unidentified" is used as a placeholder here, for when an official source has not yet provided us with an actual name. That is precisely the case here. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:25, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- ... In no way addresses what I've said here. But I'm glad you can admit that. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:45, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Jugs above.—Cal Jedi
- Where are people getting this idea that I want the article deleted because it isn't long enough or that it doesn't contain enough information or some other misnomer like that? At no point have I mentioned anything about the information in the article. The article could be one sentence long or it could be fifteen paragraphs long, it doesn't matter. I haven't claimed anything in the article is non-canon or non-factual, only its title, because there is no canonical basis whatsoever to claim that this character is unidentified. Ignorance of what happens in the game because it hasn't been released yet is not a valid reason to say they're unidentified. You say you don't believe the character is Boba Fett or anyone else, but how do you know they aren't? Do you have a copy of the game to confirm it either way? Of course you don't, which can only mean you're speculating. Speculation isn't allowed in articles, which means this article would no longer have a title. Without a title, it's physically impossible for the article to exist. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:25, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't see anything bad in keeping this. 1358 (Talk) 22:31, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Cumulonimbus Cloud (Meeting Room) 22:32, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 23:12, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- The whole argument for deletion is that it currently doesn't have a name? You should talk to Dantescifi. Stake black msg 23:19, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- No, my argument is that it's speculation to treat the character as unidentified without waiting for the game that will likely name them to be released. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:25, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I understand. But, then again, what's so bad about moving it to its proper title or merging it later on? This issue will sort itself over time. Stake black msg 00:02, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Merging it would mean that someone's created the same article at a different name instead of moving the current one, which is exactly the kind of issue I'm trying to avoid. -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:06, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Also, if you mean merging the article to that of a previously existing character, it would merely demonstrate the folly of creating articles for characters before we even know who they are. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:58, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Merging it would mean that someone's created the same article at a different name instead of moving the current one, which is exactly the kind of issue I'm trying to avoid. -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:06, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I understand. But, then again, what's so bad about moving it to its proper title or merging it later on? This issue will sort itself over time. Stake black msg 00:02, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- No, my argument is that it's speculation to treat the character as unidentified without waiting for the game that will likely name them to be released. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:25, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Plagueis327 23:26, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 23:51, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the principle overriding reason my vote is being crushed to death under the largest wall of text since the Exile became a girl is that the word "Unidentified" is a sticking point? DD97Which bear is best? 01:27, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Per my comment below (and precedence). As BSG says, "all will be revealed." Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 02:21, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The very first thing that's needed to create a wiki article is content, not a name. --LelalMekha 08:51, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to make an article with a blank title then and tell me how far you get. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:58, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- A guy existed, we have a picture, details of things the guy did and how he did them. We clearly state that the page title is our own conjectural name for him and nowhere do we actually claim that nobody knew his name in-universe. How anyone can argue against this page existing baffles me. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:21, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- This is what you guys do while I'm gone on a three-day trip? Explode the CT? My head hurts from reading this wall of text. Entirely per DD97. —MJ— Holocomm Monday, June 4, 2012, 01:16 UTC
- LtNOWIS 22:08, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- No-brainer. Menkooroo 00:23, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- Didn't we have the SWTOR character classes before they were released? So this is basically the same thing. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 01:05, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- The actual TOR article was also originally named "Untitled Star Wars MMORPG."—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 01:08, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- The actual TOR article was also originally named "Untitled Star Wars MMORPG."—Cal Jedi
- To elaborate on a point I made above, I made a Senate Hall thread back in December 2009 called Speculative "unidentified" articles from future products (which has since been deleted for some reason, so you can read a backup of it here) where I pointed out the speculative nature of so-called "unidentified" articles for things which haven't even made an appearance in anything yet, with the intention of taking several of the articles to TC. Instead, a bunch of users who agreed with me went and tagged them as CSD, which the admins evidently agreed with. Articles such as unidentified Mandalorian, unidentified clone trooper (Saleucami) (an older version), unidentified Twi'lek female, Satine's starship, duel on unidentified planet (Rancor-tosser), unidentified Senator, unidentified Advanced Recon Commando 4 and unidentified Advanced Recon Commando 5 have all been deleted per that precedent. I don't see why this article should be any different. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:58, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm no longer replying above, because it'll just be a continuous reiteration of everything myself and Grunny and others have already said. At this point, it looks like you and I just have opposing Wook ideologies, and we're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that as soon as we know about something, we should have an article about it, because that's our damn job. You clearly don't believe so, because you think that calling him unidentified until we find out his name and can move the article will be somehow detrimental to the site. (FWIW, your assumption that the game will definitely give us a name is completely unfounded—exhibit A: the Jedi Exile. Is it likely that they'll neglect to name the character for the game? Probably not. But do we know for certain that the will? No, we do not. So that argument does not stand.) But anyway, I'm done trying to argue; I'm endlessly repeating myself and others, and it's ceased to be worth my time. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:13, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that we should have an article as soon as we know something. The very minimum of that is to know whether something has a name or not. At this stage, it's far too early to say whether the character does or doesn't have a name. Without that knowledge, we can't give the article a title without speculating. If the article has no title, it makes it physically impossible to create it. I don't think the Wook's going to come crashing down like the Hindenburg if someone messes up moving the page at a later date, but I do think it adds an unnecessary complication to something that should otherwise be straightforward. I haven't claimed that the game will definitely name the character, it's actually something I've consciously avoided saying because it would be speculation, just as it would be speculation to say they aren't named in the game. In your Jedi Exile example, we can check Knights of the Old Republic 2 to see whether the character is named or not. We can do the same thing with every other article on the site, named or not, by checking their respective sources. That option is not currently available to us with this character. I think that covers everything. -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:03, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I know I said I was done, but you brought up an interesting statement that needs to be addressed. I'm done after this, and this time I mean it, I promise. :P But first: "I agree that we should have an article as soon as we know something. The very minimum of that is to know whether something has a name or not." No, that's not what the minimum of us knowing something about a subject is, and it never has been. The very minimum of "knowing something" is to know whether or not it canonically exists. We have an image, and we have info about this guy's life. This guy canonically exists. Ergo, we make an article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:00, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, no. Here's the deal: you make an article right now for something which has no name, without cheating your way around it by making a conjectural title. Better yet, you could resolve this entire issue by moving this page so that it has no title. Here's a handy link to where the new page will be: [[]]. Wait, that's not working. OK, try this one. No, that just takes us to the main page. Looks like we need a name for it after all, but we don't have one. That means we'll need a conjectural name for it. This is where the elephant in the room comes in, the one issue you keep ignoring. Conjectural titles are to be avoided, yet you insist that we have one for this article. Why? Instead of waiting to see whether one's even needed in the first place, you want to jump the gun and give this article one just for the sake of it. You keep avoiding this, instead going on about the content of the article. At this rate, I expect you to start telling me how it's all formatted properly, the categories are alphabetised correctly and other assorted irrelevancies that make the article fine, so I'll cut this short: I don't give a shit. Give me a valid reason this character's article should be unidentified. "I played the game and they didn't name him in it, so I had nothing better to go off" is a valid reason. "I haven't played the game and so don't know whether he was named in it" isn't. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:30, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, nope, looks like I lied again. "Conjectural titles are to be avoided." Conjectural titles have never, ever, ever been avoided. EVER. INAN, you've been here a long time, and I respect you as a fellow user—but are you kidding me? We're not going to delete this guy; because guess what, love? This guy is not unique. Every single unidentified article we have? Their titles are all conjectural. But it's not in-universe conjecture. That point bears repeating. Calling an article unidentified in the title does not mean the subject is, from an in-universe standpoint, unidentified. It just means that up to the present point in time, we—the people in OOU-land—have not yet received a name for the subject. Us calling this guy undientified is not a breach of canon. Note: we don't start unidentified articles with the term "This" anymore, because that's a reference to the title, and doing so would suggest that the "Unidentified" character is undientified in-universe—which obviously they're not. We don't do that, and so the title remains free from this burden. The title of an "unidentified" article is not calling the subject unidentified in-universe. So "unidentified" titles have to be, by definition, OOU. You want a valid reason why he's unidentified? Haha oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because he hasn't been identified yet. Oh yeah. That's it. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:05, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, conjectural titles are to be avoided. Given the choice between the proper name, a nickname and a conjectural name, which one would you go with for the article? I bet it's not the conjectural one. You'll avoid that one unless the other options aren't available. Except in this case, where you can't be bothered waiting to see if those options are available and just go straight for conjectural, evidently. You know the character isn't identified, but you keep trying to avoid why that is. It's because you have no idea what happens in the game and you have no way of currently remedying that. Why do you think it should be acceptable for users to write about things they clearly know nothing about? -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:45, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- "Why do you think it should be acceptable for users to write about things they clearly know nothing about" ...But we do know things about him. He's a bounty hunter, he explores Coruscant, he has a cool weapon, he has a mission... There are articles whose subjects we know far less about than this guy. 1358 (Talk) 18:50, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- You don't know his name (or lack of) and you don't know whether he's a previously existing character or not. These will likely become known by the time the game is released, yet apparently no-one here has the patience to wait for that to happen. -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:57, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Just one small comment; this TC is supposed to be a vote, not an arguement. Both sides have put forward their arguements a long time ago, and now its just turned into debate that loops continuesly. 501st dogma(talk) 19:01, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, that's exactly wrong. An ongoing dialogue on a TC page can be more productive than a simple vote. Even if it doesn't change the fate of the article, it can lead to other useful developments. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:26, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Again INAN, you've presented another completely invalid argument. "You don't know his name (or lack of) and you don't know whether he's a previously existing character or not." That is true for almost every single unidentified character out there. I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but I'll keep saying it until the cows come home: we don't avoid conjectural names. Ask yourself why we use them: it's because we don't have a canon name for the subject. This guy has yet to be given a canon name; so we give him a conjectural name. Look at any of the unidentified characters I've linked above: any of them could be brought up again at any point in time and given huge amounts of background information—does that mean we shouldn't have created them before? Does that mean we were wrong to have articles on them? No, of course not. This has absolutely nothing to do with "patience"; the question on the line here is: are we a comprehensive Star Wars wiki or not? I'm saying yes, we should be. You're saying no. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:53, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- You're also going to take things out of context until the cows come home, apparently. Read the sentence immediately after what you quoted, there's only one of them. Are you a time traveller by any chance? You keep treating 1313 as if it's some tangible source that you have in your lap at this very minute and can use it to verify any claims people make about what it says, so you're either from the future or you're full of shit. 1313 is the first place we'd check for a canon name. It isn't out yet, but instead of waiting for it to be, you want to cut corners and use a conjectural name instead. Those other unidentified characters have made appearances in sources, sources we can check to see whether they're identified or not. There's also no evidence that they're set to appear in any future sources, unlike a certain character whose existence was only announced on Thursday and hasn't even actually appeared in anything yet. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it, otherwise it's meaningless speculation. If your definition of 'comprehensive' is "pretend to know stuff we don't actually know", then yes, I would be vehemently opposed to this being a comprehensive Star Wars wiki. -- I need a name (Complain here) 20:27, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I have four things to say: (1) I honestly can't read what you're saying anymore with a straight face. :P (2) See everything I've said above up until this point. (3) As a matter of fact, yes, I am a time-traveler. (4) (And this is the important one—so pay attention!) Hard, canonical facts have been officially released about this guy, so you should check out a dictionary, because that means by definition what we're saying about this guy is not speculative, m'dear. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:12, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
- Hard, canonical facts, you say? Where from? A game? A book? A movie? A comic? A press release and a screenshot? See, I have some hard, canonical facts right here. It says that Darth Vader and some others go to the Ghost Prison, where they encounter some inmates who start revolting. Can I make an article right now for the inmates? How about the Jedi guard? The prisoner Trachta deals with? Emperor Palpatine's wounds? -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:18, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- I have four things to say: (1) I honestly can't read what you're saying anymore with a straight face. :P (2) See everything I've said above up until this point. (3) As a matter of fact, yes, I am a time-traveler. (4) (And this is the important one—so pay attention!) Hard, canonical facts have been officially released about this guy, so you should check out a dictionary, because that means by definition what we're saying about this guy is not speculative, m'dear. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:12, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
- You're also going to take things out of context until the cows come home, apparently. Read the sentence immediately after what you quoted, there's only one of them. Are you a time traveller by any chance? You keep treating 1313 as if it's some tangible source that you have in your lap at this very minute and can use it to verify any claims people make about what it says, so you're either from the future or you're full of shit. 1313 is the first place we'd check for a canon name. It isn't out yet, but instead of waiting for it to be, you want to cut corners and use a conjectural name instead. Those other unidentified characters have made appearances in sources, sources we can check to see whether they're identified or not. There's also no evidence that they're set to appear in any future sources, unlike a certain character whose existence was only announced on Thursday and hasn't even actually appeared in anything yet. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it, otherwise it's meaningless speculation. If your definition of 'comprehensive' is "pretend to know stuff we don't actually know", then yes, I would be vehemently opposed to this being a comprehensive Star Wars wiki. -- I need a name (Complain here) 20:27, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Just one small comment; this TC is supposed to be a vote, not an arguement. Both sides have put forward their arguements a long time ago, and now its just turned into debate that loops continuesly. 501st dogma(talk) 19:01, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- You don't know his name (or lack of) and you don't know whether he's a previously existing character or not. These will likely become known by the time the game is released, yet apparently no-one here has the patience to wait for that to happen. -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:57, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- "Why do you think it should be acceptable for users to write about things they clearly know nothing about" ...But we do know things about him. He's a bounty hunter, he explores Coruscant, he has a cool weapon, he has a mission... There are articles whose subjects we know far less about than this guy. 1358 (Talk) 18:50, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, conjectural titles are to be avoided. Given the choice between the proper name, a nickname and a conjectural name, which one would you go with for the article? I bet it's not the conjectural one. You'll avoid that one unless the other options aren't available. Except in this case, where you can't be bothered waiting to see if those options are available and just go straight for conjectural, evidently. You know the character isn't identified, but you keep trying to avoid why that is. It's because you have no idea what happens in the game and you have no way of currently remedying that. Why do you think it should be acceptable for users to write about things they clearly know nothing about? -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:45, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, nope, looks like I lied again. "Conjectural titles are to be avoided." Conjectural titles have never, ever, ever been avoided. EVER. INAN, you've been here a long time, and I respect you as a fellow user—but are you kidding me? We're not going to delete this guy; because guess what, love? This guy is not unique. Every single unidentified article we have? Their titles are all conjectural. But it's not in-universe conjecture. That point bears repeating. Calling an article unidentified in the title does not mean the subject is, from an in-universe standpoint, unidentified. It just means that up to the present point in time, we—the people in OOU-land—have not yet received a name for the subject. Us calling this guy undientified is not a breach of canon. Note: we don't start unidentified articles with the term "This" anymore, because that's a reference to the title, and doing so would suggest that the "Unidentified" character is undientified in-universe—which obviously they're not. We don't do that, and so the title remains free from this burden. The title of an "unidentified" article is not calling the subject unidentified in-universe. So "unidentified" titles have to be, by definition, OOU. You want a valid reason why he's unidentified? Haha oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because he hasn't been identified yet. Oh yeah. That's it. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:05, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, no. Here's the deal: you make an article right now for something which has no name, without cheating your way around it by making a conjectural title. Better yet, you could resolve this entire issue by moving this page so that it has no title. Here's a handy link to where the new page will be: [[]]. Wait, that's not working. OK, try this one. No, that just takes us to the main page. Looks like we need a name for it after all, but we don't have one. That means we'll need a conjectural name for it. This is where the elephant in the room comes in, the one issue you keep ignoring. Conjectural titles are to be avoided, yet you insist that we have one for this article. Why? Instead of waiting to see whether one's even needed in the first place, you want to jump the gun and give this article one just for the sake of it. You keep avoiding this, instead going on about the content of the article. At this rate, I expect you to start telling me how it's all formatted properly, the categories are alphabetised correctly and other assorted irrelevancies that make the article fine, so I'll cut this short: I don't give a shit. Give me a valid reason this character's article should be unidentified. "I played the game and they didn't name him in it, so I had nothing better to go off" is a valid reason. "I haven't played the game and so don't know whether he was named in it" isn't. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:30, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I know I said I was done, but you brought up an interesting statement that needs to be addressed. I'm done after this, and this time I mean it, I promise. :P But first: "I agree that we should have an article as soon as we know something. The very minimum of that is to know whether something has a name or not." No, that's not what the minimum of us knowing something about a subject is, and it never has been. The very minimum of "knowing something" is to know whether or not it canonically exists. We have an image, and we have info about this guy's life. This guy canonically exists. Ergo, we make an article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:00, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that we should have an article as soon as we know something. The very minimum of that is to know whether something has a name or not. At this stage, it's far too early to say whether the character does or doesn't have a name. Without that knowledge, we can't give the article a title without speculating. If the article has no title, it makes it physically impossible to create it. I don't think the Wook's going to come crashing down like the Hindenburg if someone messes up moving the page at a later date, but I do think it adds an unnecessary complication to something that should otherwise be straightforward. I haven't claimed that the game will definitely name the character, it's actually something I've consciously avoided saying because it would be speculation, just as it would be speculation to say they aren't named in the game. In your Jedi Exile example, we can check Knights of the Old Republic 2 to see whether the character is named or not. We can do the same thing with every other article on the site, named or not, by checking their respective sources. That option is not currently available to us with this character. I think that covers everything. -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:03, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Grist for the mill: Forum:CT:No more flow-walking!, which resulted in no consensus. jSarek 21:47, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- To those involved in this disussion: Enough. This thing has blown way out of proportion beyond a mere TC. While discussion is encouraged in a TC, I see this as ridiculous. As far as I can see from these piles and piles of paragraphs, we are going around in circles. I need a name: You're free to present your case as nominator of the TC. However, you have already presented your case. This conversation is not really adding anything substantial. Jonjedigrandmaster: I'm sure that you would agree that this conversation is basically pointless. This whole TC is running around in circles not getting anything done. Both sides have presented their cases, and both sides seem pretty hard set on keeping their stand. It seems next to pointless to try and change each others' minds at this point. The ones who have not voted yet have plenty to read for both sides; it's not like they're lacking for information. I strongly suggest that we end the discussion and continue the vote, as I see this discussion as next to pointless. We've presented our views; let's leave it up to the voters now to decide whether this stays or goes.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 01:29, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
- I rather strongly agree (perhaps to a greater extent than he?—I don't know) with what Culator said above. As long as people keep posting, I have absolutely no qualms with continuing to debate until either I convince them or they convince me. Even when debates stagnate, they don't always stay that way forever. Frankly, I don't really see why people here are so frequently bothered by debates on votes. *shrug* Cheers for the mediation, Cal, I'll stop. :) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:29, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
- I've managed to go in circles with Jon because he actually bothers to answer questions, Cal. You've twice now avoided answering why your belief that this isn't a previously existing character should be treated as if it were a fact. Want to try for a hat trick? -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:18, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- I have not been avoiding your question, and I resent your implication that I'm trying to do this underhandedly. I did not state that I know absolutely certain that this is in fact a new character. However, we have not received word that this is in fact an already existing character, either. If, for sake of argument, this is Boba Fett, it is basically the same as when we find out his true name. It will take a whole of two minutes to transfer the information to Boba Fett and delete this article. However, for the moment, it is not wrong to say that this is a new and different character. We have received no word that this is Boba Fett or another existing character. This would not be the first time we created an article for an unidentified character, and later we had to move it to a different character. Satele Shan in the Hope trailer was originally given an article under an unidentified title, and she was even given Miss Star Wars under that unidentified title. When we later learned that it was in fact Shan, we moved it to the Satele Shan article. For the moment, for all intents and purposes, this bounty hunter is a separate individual. I truly believe it would be much worse to not have this article, then to have it and have to move it later. What with gameplay footage coming out, E3 demo of the game, so much publicity for it, people will expect Wookieepedia to have an article for this guy. To delete it now and leave people in the dark would not be a very wise thing, in my opinion. If this guy turns out to be an existing character, we'll move the info, but for now, people have an article they can go to and find out about this seemingly new bounty hunter.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 15:40, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- You say you don't know for certain that he's a new character, but you then go on to say we might as well treat him like one anyway. If we don't know either way, why should one take precedence over the other? In the case of Satele Shan, the original article was created after her appearance in Threat of Peace Act 1. Another, separate article was created with the release of the Hope trailer. At the time, there was nothing to suggest they were the same person, since the latter was unnamed in the trailer, there was (AFAIK) nothing in Satele's bio about her fighting Sith on Alderaan and they both looked completely different to each other. It was only later that it was revealed that Satele's design had been changed and they were the same character. If there had been something to suggest it at the time, I expect we would've asked the TOR developers and/or Leland Chee for clarification. In either case, we created the articles after they'd made an actual appearance in something, rather than creating them after an announcement that they would appear in something, eg if BioWare had released a picture and said they were going to release a comic/trailer featuring a female Jedi. As for reader expectations, I'd expect most people who come here looking for the character are doing so because they want to see if we know something they don't, not to see if an article for the guy exists yet. To be able to find the article, they'll most likely go to the Star Wars: 1313 one first, which has the same info as the bounty hunter's article. I'm not saying we should go all Stalin on the guy and remove every trace of him from the wiki, I just think it's far too early to be making a separate article for him, especially when we have to resort to a conjectural title to do so. I also don't see why we should have to move the info around later if we can avoid creating a situation where that's necessary in the first place. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:04, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- What you just said only solidifies what I said above. We have a canonical picture of this bounty hunter. We had a canonical trailer of Satele Shan. Are you saying that a trailer takes canonical precedence over a canonical picture? No. Both are canon. We have also now seen gameplay of Star Wars: 1313. Thus, we not only have a canonical picture of this bounty hunter, but also actual gameplay canonical information on this bounty hunter. Are you saying that a trailer (Hope) takes precedence over the game (Star Wars 1313)? No. This is the same instance. The Unidentified Satele Shan was canonically featured in a trailer. The real Satele Shan was featured in other material. Same person, yet we created articles for both. The same as this bounty hunter. He was canonically featured in a picture (and now in actual, official, canonical gameplay), so we create an article for this guy.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 23:18, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm saying that a trailer takes precedence over a picture. Hope isn't a trailer in the traditional sense of a montage of footage with a voiceover, it's a short cinematic with its own narrative which can stand on its own while simultaneously serving as promotional material for TOR. It's the same thing with the Lost Tribe of the Sith eBooks and Fate of the Jedi. It's possible to read either of those series of books without reading the other one. A picture, however, is just a picture. It's more akin to the cover of a book, its purpose being that it makes you want to know more, without telling you much on its own. Even gameplay footage, book excerpts, the comic previews on the Dark Horse website and (usually) game demos serve the same purpose of piquing people's interest. We don't treat these as separate appearances because they're a small part of a larger appearance. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:59, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- What you just said only solidifies what I said above. We have a canonical picture of this bounty hunter. We had a canonical trailer of Satele Shan. Are you saying that a trailer takes canonical precedence over a canonical picture? No. Both are canon. We have also now seen gameplay of Star Wars: 1313. Thus, we not only have a canonical picture of this bounty hunter, but also actual gameplay canonical information on this bounty hunter. Are you saying that a trailer (Hope) takes precedence over the game (Star Wars 1313)? No. This is the same instance. The Unidentified Satele Shan was canonically featured in a trailer. The real Satele Shan was featured in other material. Same person, yet we created articles for both. The same as this bounty hunter. He was canonically featured in a picture (and now in actual, official, canonical gameplay), so we create an article for this guy.—Cal Jedi
- You say you don't know for certain that he's a new character, but you then go on to say we might as well treat him like one anyway. If we don't know either way, why should one take precedence over the other? In the case of Satele Shan, the original article was created after her appearance in Threat of Peace Act 1. Another, separate article was created with the release of the Hope trailer. At the time, there was nothing to suggest they were the same person, since the latter was unnamed in the trailer, there was (AFAIK) nothing in Satele's bio about her fighting Sith on Alderaan and they both looked completely different to each other. It was only later that it was revealed that Satele's design had been changed and they were the same character. If there had been something to suggest it at the time, I expect we would've asked the TOR developers and/or Leland Chee for clarification. In either case, we created the articles after they'd made an actual appearance in something, rather than creating them after an announcement that they would appear in something, eg if BioWare had released a picture and said they were going to release a comic/trailer featuring a female Jedi. As for reader expectations, I'd expect most people who come here looking for the character are doing so because they want to see if we know something they don't, not to see if an article for the guy exists yet. To be able to find the article, they'll most likely go to the Star Wars: 1313 one first, which has the same info as the bounty hunter's article. I'm not saying we should go all Stalin on the guy and remove every trace of him from the wiki, I just think it's far too early to be making a separate article for him, especially when we have to resort to a conjectural title to do so. I also don't see why we should have to move the info around later if we can avoid creating a situation where that's necessary in the first place. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:04, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- I have not been avoiding your question, and I resent your implication that I'm trying to do this underhandedly. I did not state that I know absolutely certain that this is in fact a new character. However, we have not received word that this is in fact an already existing character, either. If, for sake of argument, this is Boba Fett, it is basically the same as when we find out his true name. It will take a whole of two minutes to transfer the information to Boba Fett and delete this article. However, for the moment, it is not wrong to say that this is a new and different character. We have received no word that this is Boba Fett or another existing character. This would not be the first time we created an article for an unidentified character, and later we had to move it to a different character. Satele Shan in the Hope trailer was originally given an article under an unidentified title, and she was even given Miss Star Wars under that unidentified title. When we later learned that it was in fact Shan, we moved it to the Satele Shan article. For the moment, for all intents and purposes, this bounty hunter is a separate individual. I truly believe it would be much worse to not have this article, then to have it and have to move it later. What with gameplay footage coming out, E3 demo of the game, so much publicity for it, people will expect Wookieepedia to have an article for this guy. To delete it now and leave people in the dark would not be a very wise thing, in my opinion. If this guy turns out to be an existing character, we'll move the info, but for now, people have an article they can go to and find out about this seemingly new bounty hunter.—Cal Jedi
- I've managed to go in circles with Jon because he actually bothers to answer questions, Cal. You've twice now avoided answering why your belief that this isn't a previously existing character should be treated as if it were a fact. Want to try for a hat trick? -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:18, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
- I rather strongly agree (perhaps to a greater extent than he?—I don't know) with what Culator said above. As long as people keep posting, I have absolutely no qualms with continuing to debate until either I convince them or they convince me. Even when debates stagnate, they don't always stay that way forever. Frankly, I don't really see why people here are so frequently bothered by debates on votes. *shrug* Cheers for the mediation, Cal, I'll stop. :) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:29, June 4, 2012 (UTC)