Forum:TC:Unidentified tactical droid

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 keep. Graestan^(Talk) 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified tactical droid (talk - history - links - logs)

Every individual tactical droid seen so far has been "unidentified." None have been given identifiers. Therefore it seems ridiculous to have several "unidentified tactical droid" articles when you can just make mention of the individual cases in the tactical droid article. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete

1. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Jonjedigrandmaster 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Probably could have been CSD'd. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
   • I tried that. The creator of the page removed the tag, so rather than put it in again, figured it would just go round and round, I went the TC route. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
4. I'm starting to think that we should just nominate every unidentified character for deletion. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
5. I didn't make articles for the individual plunk droids. Graestan^(Talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep

1. Nein. Especially when there's valuable info to be told about each of these tactical droids. Just give each of them a new parenthetical title. Thefourdotelipsis 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
2. I don't see why droids should be different than people in this case. -- Ozzel 22:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm afraid this will start a dangerous trend of unnecessarily deleting other "Unidentified" articles. I think common sense can win out here without making a policy. Furthermore, I think this specific droid is significant enough to warrant an article. That being said, we should, however, be careful of creating articles for Unidentified stormtrooper 4578 standing in a crowd of 10,000. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Should be moved to a more specific name, so we can have Unidentified T-series tactical droid (Aayla Secura's ambush) and Unidentified T-series tactical droid (Christophsis) and so on, but it shouldn't be deleted. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
5. IFYLOFD ^{(Come with me if you want to live.)} 01:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
6. A tough decision this is. I believe, that all three so far are notable: Tactical Droid (Aayla Secura), Tactical Droid (Quell) and Tactical Droid (Christophsis) should each have their own article, as they all can be distinquished, have unqiue images to represent them, had lines and have something to write about them. Mauser 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Unidentified clone troopers who just stand there or do the exact same thing as hundreds of others, yeah, those I don't want us to have articles on. But if a character has something unique about him, her or it - either a unique appearance, unique actions, etc. - then an article it should have. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
8. If we had formal guidelines on notability of unidentified characters, I think they'd end up written so that this guy would barely pass them. —Silly Dan _(talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Tope and Culator below. We have a modus operandi, let's stick to it. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 17:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Individuals appearing in webcomics with significant roles get articles whether they have names or not. This isn't even a borderline case. Havac 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Per Top, precedent, and the ease of identifying this as a unique character. Wildyoda 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm inclined to vote keep on this, because I'm afraid this might start a bad trend. While I understand the ludicrousness of creating "Unidentified" articles for every droid soldier and stormtrooper, etc., that has ever appeared and how that could get out of control, this specific guy seems legitimate since he "led" a force. That he's a leader should be enough to justify an article, as opposed to some nameless extra among a sea of thousands. Comments? Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • They have all been leaders so far. The one in Jedi Crash was leading a Separatist Fleet. The one seen in The Hidden Enemy was given commands by Ventress to lead other droid troops. They are all "leaders" of droid forces so far. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 21:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Would it not be appropriate just to create parenthetical titles to distinguish between each one? "Unidentified tactical droid (Aayla Secura)," as a poor example? This guy just seems specific enough, as opposed to, for example, The seventh stormtrooper who chased Luke Skywalker down the Death Star hallway, not to be a sarcastic jerk :P Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Geez, I can't believe what a sarcastic jerk you're being about this ;). No really though. I don't see why he is any more significant than "Unidentified tactical droid (Battle of Quell)" or "Unidentified tactical droid (Christophsis)". And, from the looks of things, there are going to be several more "unidentified tactical droids" see in the forthcoming Ryloth trilogy of episodes. Do we make separate "unidentified" articles for each and every one? - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
        • My concern is that, to answer your question, if these were humans or sentient species, I would answer almost definitively yes. The question, I guess, is are droids different? I don't necessarily think so. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• The deletion log over the last few days contains a half-dozen or so speedied "Unidentified clone trooper X" articles. Might it finally be time to consider a notability policy for nameless characters? —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In light of the discussion this TC is generating, I'm thinking maybe so. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • We've tried not once, not twice, but three times without consensus. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Those "Unidentified clone trooper yada" articles were crap. If they'd had a unique picture or a unique quote or something to distinguish them, they'd not have been speedied. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Why can't we create articles like "Unidentified clone troopers," and "Unidentified tactical droids," and then all unidentified characters who fall into that classification can have their info in individual sections of the same article. If one of them gets identified later, we make an individual page for them at that time. Doluk^Talk 17:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Because naming conventions stipulate that articles have singular titles, except in instances where "plural" is appropriate, i.e., binders. One item per article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)