Forum:CT Archive/Anonymous stormies

As said on the other forum, I have recently created five or six new anonymous stormtrooper articles based on the Anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper article. As Chack said, we need a vote on how these anon stormtroopers articles are allowed. We need to tighten our policy on what kind of anonymous characters we can add. Should the anon stormies by kept or deleted? And if so, should we tighten our policy? You decide.&mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the articles and allow all anonymous articles

 * 1) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Of course. -- Ozzel 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'd say you're violating WP:POINT, except you're utterly failing to make a point. Darth Culator  (Talk) 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How am I violating POINT? I am going to say this one last time: I read the further discussion on the forum, and I changed my mind.&mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Something that has a name might well have done a lot less than something without one. Name based keepage = Bleh. Thefourdotelipsis 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) "Let's exclude canon information because no one bothered to give a character a name." What the hell? Havac 02:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Kuralyov 02:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete them and tighten the policy

 * 1) But merge relevant information to articles on whatever unit they were with/events they participated in/etc. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Imperialles 23:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Silly Dan. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) The articles are useless if they can't be found. Better to create a list with these unnamed guys then let users dungeon crawl through unhelpful categories hunting for what they're looking for. jSarek 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Per jSarek. Also, I don't believe they should remain unless the character either has a line or does something (or has something done to them) notable. &mdash;Graestan [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
We don't need to tighten the policy, as you say in the preamble. I just happen to think we should. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure this is the way to do this. Rather, I think someone who feels such articles have no place here should determine a set of In-Universe notability rules. -- Ozzel 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we close this thread and start a new one where we propose some set of rules? Perhaps SparqMan can come up with some? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Like we were saying in IRC, the only problem with troopers is that we often can't differentiate between them. A trooper who does this here might also be the one who does that there. If we could come up with a rule that left room for logic in determining if a trooper is likely different than any other trooper, I'd be satisfied. -- Ozzel 23:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See, rules for this sort of thing are tough. There are always conjecture characters who are important, and it's hard to draw boundaries. Also, I think another thread about a set of rules, in addition to, rather than instead of this one would be a good idea.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We should keep some things without a name, just not a bunch of stormtroopers that happened to do nothing. There's not notable enough. If we keep these, we could create hundreds more articles on battle droids, stormtroopers, rebel soldiers, Wookiee soldiers, etc.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 12:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)