Forums > Senate Hall archive > Anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper
I can't believe I missed out on the debate to keep Anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper. Wow. Han Solo's left boot, here we come. --SparqMan Talk 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Holy crap. What about the stormtrooper that says the stuff about the VT-16? What about the stormie that says "The Death Star plans are not in the main computer"? Are we going to make articles for those too?—DarthtylerTalk 01:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should. Uncanonically, the stormies talking about VT-16s are Tag and Bink. KEJ 17:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Darthtyler: someone has a poor memory. :P -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't remember, guess I do have a poor memory :p I can't believe I voted keep on that...—DarthtylerTalk 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Darthtyler: someone has a poor memory. :P -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should. Uncanonically, the stormies talking about VT-16s are Tag and Bink. KEJ 17:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't the CC trooper also uncanonically retconned into Tag or Bink? KEJ 10:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, many believe that one day we might learn that particular Stormtrooper's name. And if we do, we'll have a page ready for him. What far-reaching foresight. --SparqMan Talk 05:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- And what we'll get is two different articles in need of merging, since someone will search for the stormtrooper's name, not find it, and create the article fresh. Gah, that debate still bugs me. jSarek 05:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- You know how I feel about the situation. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll eat my hat if anyone EVER actively searches for "Anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper". --SparqMan Talk 14:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just did, so...get eating ;) -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 15:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh holy shit! An article on an unnamed individual! It's the end of the world! Havac 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I couldn't believe that this one got voted to stay. When I started the CT thread to delete it, I truly thought it would end up deleted. - JMAS 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per Havac. We have far shorter articles on named individuals, and far longer articles on unnamed ones. That it suddenly became an issue with this guy is baffling. -- Ozzel 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why it was decided to keep this utterly worthless article is beyond me. It presents no information other than what was already shown in the films. But Ozzel and Havac have points, I suppose. Unit 8311 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ozzel, it's not that he's unnamed. It's that he's got neither a name nor much of anything else. The argument is, if we have this, we should have an article for every movie stormtrooper and clonetrooper. There are examples that are equally or slightly more outrageous than this, such as Unnamed Rebel pilot (Endor) or Category:Unnamed Sith of Krayt's Order, but the basic argument is whether or not we should have an article for every single individual to appear anywhere or not. It's not really about this one article.-LtNOWIS 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per Havac. We have far shorter articles on named individuals, and far longer articles on unnamed ones. That it suddenly became an issue with this guy is baffling. -- Ozzel 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is probably not an article I would have gone through the bother of creating. But now that someone has, and it's a canonical individual with a canonical role and a perfectly legitimate article, I certainly don't see any point in deleting it. If someone creates an article on a known, canonical character, and the article has something to say about the character beyond "This person existed," there's absolutely no reason to delete it when there are plenty of articles on characters we know just as much about, but whom Decipher gave names or numbers. This isn't some sort of crisis, this isn't destroying our credibility, this isn't wasting space -- it's recording canon. But from the outcry over it, you'd think this guy was eating babies. Havac 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's notable, but there's no policy on that here. The only notability policy I can find is for fan page articles. -Fnlayson 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- The "article for every trooper ever" always seems to get mentioned as being a bad thing. If someone makes an article for real character, especially a movie character, I'm certainly not going to delete it. -- Ozzel 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- You have no idea how hard I'm fighting the urge to get all WP:POINTy over this comment and ones like it. jSarek 10:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- But I don't say that as a challenge; it's how I really feel about it. Again, it all comes down to these imaginary notability rules. I don't think we should have any written requirements—to me, IU existence=notable—but obviously others disagree. Still, I'd be curious to know what such requirements might be. -- Ozzel 11:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- A name, apparently. According to the preposterous "Catalogue" articles we have. Hey, I don't agree with it, but it's how this community swings. And yet, Blizzard 1... Thefourdotelipsis 11:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- For what is worth, I agree completely with what Ozzel has said so far. "IU existence=notable" that's the motto of wookiepedia. If someone wants to start creating articles for each and every Stormtrooper ever mentioned on the movies, well that just swell. They won't be deleted, but they don't have to be paid attention either. There is no need to include them on links on other articles, nor can they nominate them to GA or anything like that. So if someone starts creating them, it will only prove that he is a fool that could have spent all that time contributing significantly to the wiki, but instead choose to wear the Captain Obvious Hat and create an article with a picture of a Stormie walking down a hall and stating "This Stormtrooper walked down a hall." Carlitos Moff 16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to pull out my old example workhorses, but unless you genuinely think identical articles on every single one of the ~500 guys visible in this image, or every celebrant in this shot, would be a credit to Wookieepedia, then IU existence alone is not sufficiently notable for article creation. jSarek 03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the second one, no individuals are distinct enough to make articles out of. In the first, if someone wants to go ahead and make those . . . hell, more power to him. It's not going to make me cry. Is it pointless? More or less. Is it worthy of deletion ? No. No one gives a damn about Bugle boy, either, but he's canon, so we have an article. In-universe = notable. This isn't Wikipedia; we started this so we could record everything that's canon. To suddenly say that we can have articles on Samiam, who also shows up onscreen to die and that's it, and not this guy, just becuase the first guy happened to get assigned a name . . . that's just silly. We know as much information about both, except one has a name. Yet no one's suggesting that we remove all unnamed individuals; the line is arbitrary and a matter of personal preference. "Oh, this is silly. It has to go." "Why?" "Well, it's just too silly. It has to go. It crosses an ill-defined and wholly subjective line. We can't have it." Havac 03:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to pull out my old example workhorses, but unless you genuinely think identical articles on every single one of the ~500 guys visible in this image, or every celebrant in this shot, would be a credit to Wookieepedia, then IU existence alone is not sufficiently notable for article creation. jSarek 03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- For what is worth, I agree completely with what Ozzel has said so far. "IU existence=notable" that's the motto of wookiepedia. If someone wants to start creating articles for each and every Stormtrooper ever mentioned on the movies, well that just swell. They won't be deleted, but they don't have to be paid attention either. There is no need to include them on links on other articles, nor can they nominate them to GA or anything like that. So if someone starts creating them, it will only prove that he is a fool that could have spent all that time contributing significantly to the wiki, but instead choose to wear the Captain Obvious Hat and create an article with a picture of a Stormie walking down a hall and stating "This Stormtrooper walked down a hall." Carlitos Moff 16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- A name, apparently. According to the preposterous "Catalogue" articles we have. Hey, I don't agree with it, but it's how this community swings. And yet, Blizzard 1... Thefourdotelipsis 11:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- But I don't say that as a challenge; it's how I really feel about it. Again, it all comes down to these imaginary notability rules. I don't think we should have any written requirements—to me, IU existence=notable—but obviously others disagree. Still, I'd be curious to know what such requirements might be. -- Ozzel 11:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- You have no idea how hard I'm fighting the urge to get all WP:POINTy over this comment and ones like it. jSarek 10:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The "article for every trooper ever" always seems to get mentioned as being a bad thing. If someone makes an article for real character, especially a movie character, I'm certainly not going to delete it. -- Ozzel 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- (Starting over at one asterisk rather than be 7/8ths the way across the page). I'd almost agree with you jSarek, but if somebody wants to spend the time making an article that says "this clone was in the 17th column and 422nd row of clones embarking on the Republic Cruiser Whatever", (other than for proving a point), then it's worth having an article on. If it's canon, then our motto should be "why not?" If we set some subjective point where things are too ridiculous for inclusion, it'll just get brought up in CT every couple of months and re-voted on and probably come to "no consensus" like how everyone keeps digging up with userspace edit policy like anyone is going to change their minds. I say TC them on an individual basis unless it gets to be a serious problem. And really, how is having an Anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper going to interfere with anyone's searching/browsing? Wildyoda 03:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, there's an important distinction to be made with this kind of thinking. Should Wookieepedia be a inclusive source of all Star Wars canon? Yes. Does that need to take the form of every bit of information deserving an article? No. That's just poor structure. There's a reason that encyclopedic style organizes information into grok-able topics. For example, having an article each for Rogue 1/Leader - Rogue 12 callsigns is less useful than including a section in Rogue Squadron about the use of callsigns within the unit. With a smart redirect structure, obscure small canon elements can (in most situations) be folded into a useful, more complete piece. THAT is my beef with the article, not its notability. --SparqMan Talk 06:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I say nuke it, per jSarek and SparqMan. Anyone up for another deletion attempt? Chack Jadson (Talk) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think Sparqman is right on target. - JMAS 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I say nuke it, per jSarek and SparqMan. Anyone up for another deletion attempt? Chack Jadson (Talk) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, there's an important distinction to be made with this kind of thinking. Should Wookieepedia be a inclusive source of all Star Wars canon? Yes. Does that need to take the form of every bit of information deserving an article? No. That's just poor structure. There's a reason that encyclopedic style organizes information into grok-able topics. For example, having an article each for Rogue 1/Leader - Rogue 12 callsigns is less useful than including a section in Rogue Squadron about the use of callsigns within the unit. With a smart redirect structure, obscure small canon elements can (in most situations) be folded into a useful, more complete piece. THAT is my beef with the article, not its notability. --SparqMan Talk 06:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuke it?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?! Dont nuke this poor stormtrooper. THere is no reason to kill this article. —Unsigned comment by 71.76.153.217 (talk • contribs).
- We hate...something that exists...IU....and yet we want to keep...non-existent stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, :| Thefourdotelipsis 23:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, this is not a debate about Wookieepedia covering canon, in-universe material. This is about how we choose to organize it. --SparqMan Talk 03:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- And Wookieepedia is the end-all to be-all regarding canon (as well as non-canon) material. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. The canon existence of that stormtrooper is represented in Chewbacca, "Before he was frozen, Chewbacca threw several stormtroopers off the platform but was quickly cuffed." Voila. --SparqMan Talk 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- We can also include all canon inside one article entitled "The history of the galaxy". He's an independent individual, therefore he ought to have an individual article. Why is this a problem? Havac 21:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per Havac. If someone bothered to create the article in the first place, there is no need to delete it IMO. Carlitos Moff 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- We can also include all canon inside one article entitled "The history of the galaxy". He's an independent individual, therefore he ought to have an individual article. Why is this a problem? Havac 21:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, this is not a debate about Wookieepedia covering canon, in-universe material. This is about how we choose to organize it. --SparqMan Talk 03:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Havac, you're misinterpreting the argument. No one is suggesting we take your hyperbolic course and consolidate into a single article. We are saying that good encyclopedic style and uninhibited coverage of canon material are not mutually exclusive; we are questioning if Anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper, and its ilk, are the best way to organize our information. This particular individual has no more information about him than what is quoted above, and his fellow stormtroopers in the room could have articles which read, "The anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper was a stormtrooper who participated in the Imperial occupation of Cloud City. In the carbonite chamber, he stood guard and watched while Han Solo was frozen in carbonite." So, aside from the status quo position of "if it's here already, why bother?", can someone explain to me the value of this guy having his own article? --SparqMan Talk 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It makes our article total look more impressive ;) Captain Daal
06:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- But when a new user clicks into this article (which is of course orphaned), they'll think, "Gee, Wookieepedia doesn't know more than I do." If we want to inflate our article count, let's create Death Star superlaser blast that destroyed Liberty and Devastator's left-most primary engine manifold. --SparqMan Talk 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That logic would only be sound if we had articles on the Unidentified Cloud City Stormtrooper's left hand, which we don't, thus, it's somewhat flawed. Anyway, that TC already happened. It was kept. Deal with it. Stop whinging. -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- But when a new user clicks into this article (which is of course orphaned), they'll think, "Gee, Wookieepedia doesn't know more than I do." If we want to inflate our article count, let's create Death Star superlaser blast that destroyed Liberty and Devastator's left-most primary engine manifold. --SparqMan Talk 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It makes our article total look more impressive ;) Captain Daal
- No, Sparq, you're misinterpreting my argument. The fact that the same information is present about him in another article is not justification for not giving him his own article, because he's an entirely different individual. It has value for categorization, for image display, for all the various benefits of having its own article. Now I ask, what is the benefit of not having it? What is the problem with having articles on people we don't know a ton about? Why spend all this effort opposing an article your argument presumes no one should care about? So we've got one more article. It's not a print encyclopedia. We're not running out of space. What's the matter, is SomethingAwful going to laugh at us? Boo hoo hoo. Havac 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- As a sidenote, my last post was intended to be a joke. Now, I voted "keep" on this one, and I don't have anything particularly against it, but I've partially reconsidered; canon content should be kept, but per SparqMan, it can be organised in better ways. Since this article is already created, it should perhaps be allowed to stay up, as long as it doesn't start a trend, but further article-making down this line should be discouraged. Captain Daal 07:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course I'll abide by the decision, I just wanted to prompt some discussion about how we organize and our decisions going forward. For example, why is this guy labeled as "Anonymous" as opposed to "Unnamed"? We should at least be consistent. And Captain Daal, the slippery slope isn't too far off: Unnamed Coruscant air bus. --SparqMan Talk 18:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pointing to an article you yourself created anonymously to reinforce your own point is generally frowned upon. (Ask me how I can tell. Connecting the dots wasn't hard.) -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't mean to do that anonymously; I'll gladly claim credit for it. Given the overwhelming support of the Anonymous/Unnamed/Unknown approach for Wookieepedia, I'm going to work on cataloging all of those special gems. --SparqMan Talk 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thus violating WP:POINT and basically being an ass. And I doubt your comment above is true -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't mean to do that anonymously; I'll gladly claim credit for it. Given the overwhelming support of the Anonymous/Unnamed/Unknown approach for Wookieepedia, I'm going to work on cataloging all of those special gems. --SparqMan Talk 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pointing to an article you yourself created anonymously to reinforce your own point is generally frowned upon. (Ask me how I can tell. Connecting the dots wasn't hard.) -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
