FANDOM

9,368 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Separate articles for unnamed characters

So far as I can see, there has never been a discussion on this site to have separate articles for each of the unnamed characters. Now I know that this Wiki follows whole-heartedly in the footsteps of Memory Alpha, so much so that the latter Wiki is used for precedent on many occasions, I don't think we have to stick to their rules of doing everything. Yeah, it was a good way to get a Wiki going and helped to establish policy, but I don't see why we can't do things our own way.

If unnamed characters all had their own page, it would make giving them more information than what they currently have a lot easier. For example, background information and notes can never be included (or at least, have not up until this point) because there isn't the space for it. And similarly, memorable quotes sections on unnamed character pages are messy. Take, for example, Day 6's Ambassador. Irritatingly, the writers never gave him a name so he, probably the most influential unnamed character, is restricted to this page. The memorable quotes section ruins the fluidity of the page. Another thing that cannot be shown on the unnamed pages is the appearances template, which greatly helps to understand what kind of proportion of the season the character is in.

Now look, for example, at unnamed character pages on Lostpedia, which gives them all seperate articles. Take Sexy Blue Striped Shirt Girl. Now granted that page has a silly name and something we shouldn't do (it is based on a fan-given name). The page allows for a lot of information to be provided, such as BGIN and a sidebar. Some other examples: Old Scooter Man has less information but the proposed changes are still useful for his BGIN section. Another: Curly-haired guy. He was not even seen, he was just referenced but he gets his own page. This would help to fully cover everything and everyone that is mentioned in the 24-verse. I'm sure that at some point a character will have commented on someone else in this fashion, and before it would have just been left out. If the proposed changes are accepted this could greatly improve the density in which we detail the show.

A final example: unnamed characters from The Game can also be included - see Bodyguard (Via Domus). This would allow us to include characters who did not speak but appeared influentially; aka. Blue Rook's Forbidden Characters. I think some of those definitely need a place in the main name space. Just because they weren't credited it seems unfair for them not to be known to Wiki 24.

Anyway, I have presented my argument. Lets see what you all think. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 11:39, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing I thought of: this could be used for locations and objects as well. As you may have noticed I recently made articles for Jack's recording and Omar Hassan's pen. I think more articles like this should be created to help strengthen the world of 24 we are presenting. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 13:39, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree on objects/locations - was going to bring that up myself - but not on characters. Lost is a different animal in this regard - one of the central characters to the entire mythology had no name! On this show, the minor roles that we would be making pages for simply come and go, and usually their contributions are limited to a single scene. As it is now, the Unnamed characters pages provide the perfect level of detail. --Pyramidhead 19:25, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Pyramidhead here. I have no problem with the occasional "unnamed object" page such as the two you've created, but with characters it starts to look a little unprofessional. As much as I love the attention to detail on Lostpedia... "Curly-haired guy"? "Sexy Blue Striped Shirt Girl"?? Really? I see no problem with expanding the unnamed characters pages to include more information. --proudhug 20:09, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
That's why I raised the fact that we wouldn't name them so ridiculously. We could simply use "Female CTU agent" or "Day 6 Ambassador" for our cases. I agree it would look unprofessional if we called them "Totally hot blonde at CTU" and "Black haired political guy" and so we can stick with IU names that make sense and are encyclopaedic. Pyramidhead, the example you give is a fair point, but long before that character even existed on the show (granted, there always was the Smoke Monster but only the last two seasons has had Man In Black) unnamed characters had their own pages and it seemed beneficial. Just because unnamed characters' appearances are limited to a single scene doesn't mean they should be given less relevance than, say, James (Day 7). And yes I agree with you, many are limited to a single scene but others are recurring background characters/more important characters who simply weren't named, who could be given more information and an appearances template would would visually be easier to see their appearances. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 00:14, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. I can't think of an example in the show that would merit a separate page, or how that would improve the Wiki in the end. Will that mean every unnamed character gets his/her own page? wouldn't that be much of a load to the Wiki? and if it isn't meant for all characters, how will we draw the line on who gets a separate page and who doesn't? It seems to me it would only complicate things. Thief12 05:00, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
A few responses:
Proudhug I'm with Simon regarding the point that we wouldn't use downright silly article names for these. In fact, many of their entries over on the Unnamed pages are satisfactory in my opinion for sounding professional enough.
Thief most of what you're raising would be dealt with procedurally, that is, everyone with an unnamed entry would simply get the content moved to a new article. We wouldn't be changing the criteria or reinventing who qualifies as an Unnamed character worthy of attention, just moving stuff to individual articles. Also, on the contrary Thief the wiki would definitely not be burdened by the extra articles! In fact it would increase our stature among the Wikia community in general, and we wouldn't have to maintain those huge pages anymore.
Overall, there are only 3 central points that I've ever considered about the benefits of moving these guys out to their own articles. The first is the simple matter of linking: nobody can disagree that the new system would be downright easier to link to. Second is this: we're already artificially assigning "names" to these characters anyway. But nobody would ever say we're actually claiming canonically that "Paula's emergency paramedic" is the guy's actual name. It's simply the name of his entry for lack of a real name. So what point does segregating him into a compilation page serve? He already has a made up name, what difference does it make if that name is loaded with others into 1 page or serving as an actual article title? The final point is something people have already touched on, namely we're shortchanging these characters the equal treatment of appearances templates that even Hervé gets. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:54, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
So do we have any counter arguments? --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 09:57, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Long overdue bump. I'm okay with this if everyone else is. --Pyramidhead 20:29, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that: a potential problem just occurred to me. A lot of the characters are named by numbers: i.e., Flight 520 passenger 1, 2, 3, etc. This works in the current setup because they're all listed together, but if they were their own page, won't it seem awkward? And what about weird situations like the Sangalan villagers from the video? Unless it were possible to find more descriptive titles, which it wouldn't always, it might just be better to leave the pages as is. --Pyramidhead 20:36, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think it will be alright to have "Passenger 1", "Passenger 2", etc, and we can link to the others in a "see also" section. And the Sangalan villagers could all have one page maybe? --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 19:27, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me it's just going to get more and more arbitrary. All for the purpose of changing something that works perfectly well as it is. --proudhug 16:39, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to bring this up again. I don't know why you think it will be arbitrary Proudhug, because as Blue Rook stated, we would only move pages to new ones that are already classified as unnamed. And now that the series has ended we won't be constantly debating new people to include. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 09:39, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.