What are Memory Alpha's reasons for grouping unnamed character articles together rather than giving them each individual articles like the Lostpedia does? We're having a discussion on Wiki 24 about changing the policy from Memory Alpha style to Lostpedia style, and so I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on the pros and cons of each method. --proudhug 13:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- The main reason is we're not in the business of giving them names. There are a few exceptions, Future Guy, Seska's baby (new, so may be merged), Viceroy and Chef, but these are cases of either an in-universe nickname or title being used, or a production source name (in Future Guy's case, a fan named used by the production team). Generally if the character was either very important or used/referenced a lot, and there is a way for an article to be named under the guildlines, they have a chance of getting an article. I can't speak on what your wiki does, but if you are/become the "canon" source for info on 24, just know that information on your wiki will be taken as fact, even if it's really a bit less than that. - Archduk3 17:31, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
But you have to give them "names" on the unnamed characters pages when you create the headings for each person, right? What's the reason for not just moving these to individual articles? Wouldn't it simplify wikilinking and permit the use of sidebars? Note that I'm playing devil's advocate here; Currently, Wiki 24 follows the same guidelines as MA and I'd personally like to preserve this, but I can see the benefits of both methods.
I don't know how much of a resource Wiki 24 has been for the writers of 24, but I do know that FOX pointed the creators of the 24 CCG our way when they asked for information on minor characters and such. --proudhug 18:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- They do have headers, but how much fun would a single wiki article be with a name such as "Drone #1 (Borg Cube 34 -- Best of Both Worlds, Part 1)"? Or "Unnamed Trio of Drones"? Part of the decision was made due to that reasoning, especially since most of those names are very generic, especially with the plethora of unnamed characters that we've managed to now collect. We have considered putting in redirects to point to the collected pages, but run into the same problems as I noted here. -- sulfur 18:22, June 30, 2010 (UTC)