Talk:Viceroy (Reman)

Viceroy
Can't the poor Viceroy get his own page? I know he is technically an "unnamed Reman," but he was a fairly major character in the movie. While we're on the subject, can't Chef get his own page? -Angry Future Romulan 19:56, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we might want to consider that. I actually didn't realize he didn't have his own page until you pointed it out.  The current Viceroy page could be changed to "Viceroy (title)" or the character's page could be Viceroy (Reman).--31dot 21:03, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going for it. I'm going to title the page Reman Viceroy, but, obviously, if anyone thinks there's a more appropriate title, or one more in keeping with MA format, then retitling/redirecting is cool with me. -Angry Future Romulan 14:40, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm not on board with this, as this could lead to all sorts of problems and strangely titled articles. Second, a day is hardly long enough for people to respond around here. That's not to say don't be bold and all that jazz, it just means after waiting nearly long enough to forget what you wanted to do is the most opportune time to be bold, or something. Either way, this guy doesn't have a name and shouldn't have his own article, no matter how important or good an actor Ron Perlman is. ;) That same goes for Chef. - 05:36, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the wait but don't agree that he shouldn't get his own page. He was called Viceroy. A random user searching for the reman viceroy will type "Viceroy" into the search box and it should direct that person to this character or at least a disambig page that leads to this character. The information currently on Viceroy doesn't really say that the "unnamed reman" link will tell you more information and that's sad for any user who might look for this character. The Viceroy isn't some random background character that fills most "unnamed" pages. This was a major character in the movie and has quite a bit more info that could be said about him on that page. &mdash; Morder (talk) 06:44, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that there wasn't room for improvement, there should have been a disambiguation link at the top of the Viceroy page at the very least, but giving unnamed characters their own pages is a can of worms better left unopened.
 * If we are keeping this, the title should be changed to Viceroy (Reman), what 31dot suggested above, and all links still pointing to the Unnamed Remans page need to be redirect here. - 08:03, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll second Morder's comments :) and support my initial suggestion. The gun might have been jumped a little but it's OK. --31dot 09:53, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Apologies all around for my premature action here. I honestly didn't think anyone would have a problem with it, considering he was such a major character, but I will show more discretion in the future. Just to defend myself a bit, I would point out that, if Chef and Viceroy don't get their own pages, I'm not sure Future Guy should, either, but I'm not sure anybody would be on board with moving him to unnamed individuals. -Angry Future Romulan 14:09, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Future guy should have his own page either. The same logic that says the Viceroy or Chef should have their own pages could also be used to justify pages for the Klingon Ambassador, the Romulan Commander, the other Romulan Commander, the Sirah, the Federation President, the other Federation President, and so on. Do all these characters need their own pages too? - 15:40, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be contrary here, but...yeah, I think they do. Obviously, however, I will leave such decisions up to admins, and what not. -Angry Future Romulan 15:44, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said on IRC, earlier: I think that lack of a proper name alone shouldn't be a reason to not write a separate article about someone or something. This decision should, first and foremost, depend on the amount of content that could be collected. If someone doesn't have a proper name but a descriptive title and two pages of content - let's have a page about him. If there's nothing but three lines of text - let's not. :) -- Cid Highwind 22:42, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree- depends on the level of content. I would say that the Fed Presidents and the Romulan Commanders shouldn't get their own pages though, as that is not one person- in the case of this Viceroy and Chef there is only one person possibly being referred to.--31dot 23:59, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict]
 * I would ask why these characters need their own pages?
 * Is it somehow a slight if the information is on one of the unnamed pages? Are they less for being there? As far as I can tell, this is all about "elevating" these characters above the rest of the nameless based on their screen time. The only difference between being on one of the unnamed pages and having a separate page that I can find is that a list article would never be a Featured Article. Can any of these characters really be a FA? I would support Chef, but I doubt it would gain any ground beyond just me. :)
 * Where is the line in this? If we're looking at their worth to the story, I would say Nero's wife was far more important to a plot then the actual character of Chef has even been. If it's content, should this woman, or this guy, or this other guy, have a page too? Those three have more content than hundreds of our other standalone articles, the only difference is a name. We just went through a fiasco over article titles, and I know people grumble about our "fan" titles for conflicts, so why add more potentially unencyclopedic articles than we have to?
 * Is this guy going to be easier to find with a page based on his script description? He has content and was important to the plot, but how would a separate page make him easier to find? If we're already going to have redirects and disambiguations, like we should for the Viceroy and Chef, does it really matter where they point?
 * If we can answer these questions now, either way, it will save us a whole lot of time later on when it's more than just me being a stick in the mud about this. :) - 00:30, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cid, that's the general idea I was trying to convey in my statement above. It's a gray area that I feel should be handled based simply on the content of the article. The longer the article the more likely I feel it should have a separate page. In the case of this particular character a lot more can be said about him than say, the Klingon Chancellor mentioned above. &mdash; Morder (talk) 00:34, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * My response to Archduk- The articles on unnamed Enterprise characters you cite essentially only document which episodes they appeared in, and provide no valuable information. The 2364-65 security officer did not help people with their problems, or was talked about by other characters- he was just there, and had one line.  Same with the female flight controller- her entry essentially only documents the episodes she appeared in, and provides no personal information.  In the case of the Romulan Captain, he wasn't even called Captain anywhere other than the script, so he is truly an unnamed Romulan.
 * I don't think it's unencyclopedic to call Chef's article Chef- that's what the characters called him and as such it is how people would look for him. Same with the viceroy.  These aren't "fan titles", these are what the characters were called.  It's not about elevating them above other characters based on screen time or number of apperances- it's about using the unique means to identify them that already exists.(Note- that is not the case with Federation President, as there are two unnamed Presidents.)--31dot 01:24, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Re:31dot - What I'm trying to do here is point out we need a guideline for this. Things like importance or content should not be it, as you can have content without it saying anything important and have someone important without any content. I wouldn't mind treating these titles as nicknames, which is a bit of a loophole, but that would allow for other pages like the Federation Presidents or Romulan Commanders. Saying they can't have a separate page because there were two is a bit off-putting, as a simple disambiguation would fix that, and would that mean if another Chef or Viceroy came along, we would move these two back to an unnamed page? So while I'm not opposed to this if some workable guideline can be found, I'm just not on board for the reasons that were given when this was moved. - 02:09, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced we really need an explicit guideline for this - but if we do, it would be absurd to state that the amount of available content must not play a role. -- Cid Highwind 15:42, May 13, 2010 (UTC)