9,367 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Inclusion policy of unnameds

This was just a minor thing after the Forum:2_small_policy_ideas was implemented - but in copying the inclusion policy from the unnamed characters pages to the inclusion policy at Wiki_24:Policy, the wording has changed from "unnamed characters with spoken lines" to "any character with significant English dialogue". Now this is fine, it is a change I agree with, but it's brought up some questions on User talk:Blue Rook about what constitutes a line, what is significant dialogue, and whether or not this is a retroactive change or not.

My feeling is that if we do change the inclusion criteria, then we should retroactively apply it to existing entries, otherwise we get a situation where we're saying "characters with insignificant dialogue are ineligible, unless they were added to Wiki 24 before 24th March 2011, in which case they are eligible". This "insignificant dialogue" thing can lead to grey areas, and some of it is judgement calls, but I think we should at least be consistent regardless of when entries were made--Acer4666 17:58, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point, but then you're Gaines' thug guy and several others would have to be removed. Indeed, he is in a lot of episodes, but he has no significiant English dialogue other than "Come on, move", and it was offscreen. I agree that it shouldn't just be someone who says something like a response offscreen, because then it would be ridiculous. But if the character is seen doing something important and he does have some dialogue (albeit how small, like with my example of Amador's operative) he should be added. Your entry is hard to place, because he doesn't do much important other than stand around, and had it not been for that very small line of dialogue, he couldn't have been added at all. --ASHPD24 20:25, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I would probably actually vote against the inclusion of Gaines' thug, and would want him removed. I originally suggested him as a forbidden character4 to Blue rook, but was convinced to make a unnamed entry for him. Now I think about him and his line it seems he doesn't fit as an unnamed terrorist, and think the new criteria "significant dialogue" does work and should be implemented across the board--Acer4666 23:20, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
But whati f they are doing something important at the time critical to that scene but have little dialogue? --ASHPD24 23:28, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
There are options on the table to tinker with this so we can keep that thug and others like him, as I see it. Maybe something like a simple episode-number threshold (three or more episodes and the significance of the spoken dialogue may be diminished). This way, notable ones who appear often can be included if their lines aren't as prominent, but we will keep out stuff like the hundreds of strictly-background chatter extras in airports, on streets, and all that nonsense. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:53, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
If we're going by importance as well, wouldn't it be a good idea to amend the criteria to say even if that person has no dialogue or unimportant dialogue (like some of your forbidden characters, who are very important to several scenes) that can be included so long as they are significant? There of course would have to be qualifications for how significiant, but I think this is a better idea overall. --ASHPD24 01:58, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

It was discussed before, and the consensus is that we can't do that because it would be purely subjective. Originally I had a list of possible criteria we could use to agree on who is "important" but as Proudhug said here, it would be largely impossible. I do still agree with him, it's an unfortunate but honest assessment. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:50, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

How about changing the wording from "any character with significant dialogue" to "any significant character with dialogue"? Both wordings are subjective, but the latter allows recurring people such as crewcut separatist and gaines thug.
And do we need the qualifier about it being English? I dunno what sort of people that specifically excludes that we don't want on there, but suppose Omar (Day 2) or Marko Khatami hadn't been given names - important characters excluded because they didn't have the good grace to speak our language haha!--Acer4666 09:18, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
It seems that's a good option, no argument here. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:45, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.