Forum:CT Archive/Unnamed, unknown, nameless

So it's pretty clear that we're not going to get notability rules anytime soon. But can we at least get some consistency in nomenclature? We've got unknown this and unnamed that and nameless other thing. Can we at least decide on a single term to use for "unidentified" stuff? Like, I don't know, "unidentified?" I mean, clearly these things are known, since they're here. And they likely have names, unless their parents are the GFFA equivalent of Swedish expressionists.

Thoughts? Ideas? Complaints? Or can we just move these things already? -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 02:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I said here "I think "unidentified" is the best word to use, though: they aren't "unknown" since we have some information about them, "anonymous" implies they were deliberately hiding their identity, and "unnamed" implies they didn't have so much as a droid or clone trooper identity code." &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Dan. Unidentified and categorize said articles by following text. --  Riffsyphon  1024 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unidentified is definitely the best and most accurately descriptive word for these people/places/things. - JMAS 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah! You should have put it in the CT so we could call it a rule. :-P -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At least if all four of us agree, it's pretty close to consensus now. Unless someone else wants to chime in with an objection, or supersede this thread with some spiffy notability rule that all rational Wookieepedians will somehow manage to agree on. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I would love to get this settled with some good ol' spiffy notability rule, It's not something I can really came up with. I will however propose something regarding the unamed articles... Why use "Unidentified Bald Jedi" when we can use "Tatooed Bald Jedi" or maybe just "Bald Jedi"? What I am trying to say is... Is it not better to use more descriptive names for this kind of articles rather that have a huge list of "Undientified somethings"? Just asking. Carlitos Moff 05:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because using a particular word as a tag in the title allows a reader familiar with the site to very quickly determine if the name is conjecture on our part, or a real name or in-universe name for the subject. Yes, we also have templates for that, but if someone is scanning a category for something, they can't see templates. Anyway, count me in for "unidentified" - I agree with Silly Dan's reasons back in the original SH discussion. jSarek 12:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I too go with unidentified, per Dan's reasoning. Unit 8311 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You got a point there jSarek. Let's just go ahead and put them all under unidentified. Carlitos Moff 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unidentified. And this seems like a fairly clear consensus already. —Xwing328 (Talk) 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with unidentified.  Stake black   msg 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As if there wasn't enough consensus anyway, unidentified works best for me. Though, after the Unidentified title, I would accept some descriptors, aka Unidentified blue tentacled being or something like that. Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the other thread, putting "unidentified" (or whatever we choose) first in the title is problematic. I'd suggest putting it in parentheses at the end if we use it. Edit: This is in response to the train of discussion started by Carlitos Moff above. - Lord Hydronium 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per LH, entirely. Parentheses work well elsewhere already. But, in response to the main question, I think unidentified is the best word. Graestan ( Talk ) 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, instead of Unidentified Verpine Jedi, we'd have Verpine Jedi (unidentified)? I honestly can't decide if that looks better or worse, but it would help the alphabetization. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm used to the former over the latter, but if it helps. Gah, I'm undecided. --  Riffsyphon  1024 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean alphabetization within categories, that's already covered within the categorization template already; simply add |SURNAME,GIVEN NAME (in this case, let's say |Rodian Prisoner, Unidentified]] for Unidentified Rodian prisoner) within the brackets of the category tag. To the main point, Unidentified sounds best, without the parentheses.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very much agreed with Goodwood. Parentheses look terrible in this instance, and the software allows us to fix the alphabetizing. Unidentified without the parentheses Wildyoda 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unidentified, no parentheses. --  Riffsyphon  1024 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)