This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was no consensus. Graestan^(Talk) 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We all know the situation. For years, there have been TC arguments and whatnot regarding nameless individuals. Some say, whether or not LFL has given a character a name or not is not our problem; all identifiable individuals should have articles. Others say, we can't have an article on this character, because if we allow this, then we would have to allow that, and that would be silly. There's more to it than that, of course, but it's all covered elsewhere.

The fact is, we have no notability rules, which is why this problem persists. So to start off, I propose the following for film characters only. (Yes, there are other mediums to worry about too, but they each have their own concerns. We can get to that later.) -- Ozzel 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of film charactersEdit

For a film character (with "film" meaning the six theatrical and three television films) to be considered worthy of an individual article, they must have at least one of the following:

1. A name
2. Dialogue in the film
3. The ability to be visually identifiable and distinguishable as a unique individual, and unable to be reasonably mistaken for another individual. This applies, in particular, to armored troopers, clones, and similarly dressed characters of the same species.

VoteEdit

No additional options, please.

YeaEdit

1. Ozzel 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. The third rule is pretty clear on my opinion. I say "Yea". Carlitos Moff 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Most people aren't going to actively look for Anonymous stormtrooper no. 233 or whatever. Unit 8311 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Yep. Requirements could be extended to other works, but that's another CT... -Fnlayson 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
5. We're not going to delete articles on people who exist in the EU, jeez. This will nip all the talk of having hundreds of trooper articles in the bud. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 06:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NayEdit

1. No... at least not until the "visual identifiability" criterion is more specifically defined. KEJ 10:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Nay (and possibly table this). I would vote "Yea" if everything after the first 12 words of #3 was removed. "Reasonably mistaken" just cuts out too much. I mean look at the Gunray/Haako/Libkath confusion, and that's over otherwise distinguishable individuals. (Can't find a better example, I'm tired). Common sense + "distinguishable as a unique individual" = stopping people from making articles on every clone boarding a cruiser, but if a stormtrooper gets thrown into a pit and you can tell who he is, even if we're not sure if he was the same stormtrooper who walked in on Vader's left or right 3 minutes earlier, who cares? I think that's the kind of thing that the second stipulation there will end up getting discussed in future debates. Wildyoda 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Again, I vote against anything that removes articles with no names. It's all still canon. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Michaeldsuarez ^{(Activate Holocron)} 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Riffsyphon Stake black ^msg 13:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• We should probably table this until the results of Forum:Anonymous stormies come in. jSarek 10:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps a fourth option of a further role in the EU should be included (unless that is implicit). A film character may not meet that but appear elsewhere. --Eyrezer 00:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• In that case, the character would have his article based mostly on his EU information. A good example would be: Sarkli. Carlitos Moff 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)