Entertainment
 

Forum:CT Archive/Article naming conventions

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT Archive/Article naming conventions

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to use the most commonly known name in universe, sans titles, with later names preferred to earlier names, and full names preferred to partial names or nicknames, with a clear consensus. There is still a small debate at the bottom about use of the {{title}} template to develop a compromise position.

Contents

[edit] Completed Debate

There have been several discussions going on regarding our article naming conventions; whether they should be names given at birth, names at time of death, or simply the most commonly known name. The previous consensus track page on this topic, Article Names: Real vs. Adopted, was formed from a discussion about Grievous' name, and resulted in a verdict of naming "articles based on the character's final or most widely known name." This is fundamentally flawed in that for many characters this is contradictory, i.e. their proper name at death is not what is most commonly known. Accordingly, the last consensus track verdict did not necessarily represent true community consensus in that some who voted for "Final/Most Well-Known Names" meant one specifically. Because what is decided here could affect much of our character naming policy (Aayla Secura, Jabba the Hutt, Thrawn, etc), it is important to get maximum community involvement. RMF 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character naming conventions

[edit] Names given at birth

  1. CBenoit 17:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names at time of death

  1. Seeing as names given as birth won't win like last time, I probably have a safer bet with this. And as for Mitth'raw'nuruodo, that would be Mitth'raw'nuruodo, not Thrawn, if this won. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Lord Hydronium 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. with the provision that the "name at time of death" is a name the character themself used, at least in certain circumstances (i.e., no Aaylas'ecura) Yrfeloran 00:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. It makes sense to me to have articles at the character's legal name. —Darth Culator (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. As long as any alternate names are included at the beginning of the article in bold I don't see what the problem is.--DannyBoy7783 03:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. In my opinion, nicknames are what redirects are for. StarNeptune 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. QuentinGeorge 05:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names which are most-commonly known

  1. Since these articles are all written in-universe, we would act just like Wikipedia does to us earthlings. I mean, Wikipedia wants the most common name so the articles will show up better in google. So... we should use the most common name here on Wookieepedia so that the residents of the SW galaxy could find it easier (figuratively speaking, of course). I would assume this being an in-universe article, we would want our articles to show up best on the HoloNet. ;) Adamwankenobi 00:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely positively the way to go, even when the name is a nickname. Rationale below. — SavageBob 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Of course it makes more sense in an IU perspective (and to the users) to go for the most commonly known name. KEJ 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Rudy 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most commonly known name in universe, sans titles, with later names preferred to earlier names, and full names preferred to partial names or nicknames.

  1. Erl 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC) A bit wordy, but I think the best.
  2. Since this is the wording I invented, I guess I'll vote for this option...besides, this is basically what we're doing anyway. 8)—Silly Dan (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. It's a bit of a mouthful, but I like it. :-P Ozzel 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Much better. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Adamwankenobi 11:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. This option's formulated in such an insane way, I had to vote for it KEJ 12:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Damn, this is wordy. StarNeptune 12:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. —Darth Culator (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. May not fit on a bumper sticker but it makes the most sense. --Rudy 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Covering the most ground for a reason, and that's to end this dispute. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yeah, this is pretty much what I was voting for anyway. - Lord Hydronium 07:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. I was just waiting for someone to come up with this wording ;) --Tinwe 07:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Does this mean Aayla can go back to Aayla Secura, and not the godawful Ryll name? -- Dizfactor 72.197.199.241 12:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. jSarek 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most commonly known name in universe, sans titles, with later names preferred to earlier names, and partial names or nicknames preferred to full names when those partial or nicknames are better known in universe.

  1. It's a minor distinction from the one above, but an important one. I don't see what we have to gain from placing articles where no one will find them with Google nor link to them, and why weird alien names used by a small number of individuals should be preferred to more commonly known ones like Thrawn or Jabba the Hutt. — SavageBob 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The birth name issue has already been fairly hashed out. On the other matter, I guess it's no surprise what I voted. A few reasons:

  • In many cases, like Thrawn and Jabba, the most commonly known name is not their entire name. Using that name would make the article title less specific and less accurate. I see no reason to title a character by only half of their full name when we have the whole name. After all, this is supposed to be a Star Wars information site; we shouldn't have the less informative titles. Why eliminate or sideline important information because not a lot of people know it, when we can make it so people can easily learn it?
  • Using the most accurate name possible at the latest date ensures consistency with our technical articles. In other words, if Jabba Desilijic Tiure were at Jabba the Hutt, it would make just as much sense for Delta-7 Aethersprite-class light interceptor to be at Jedi starfighter, which is a much more vague, slangy name.
  • If the problem is that no one searches for names like Mitth'raw'nuruodo, that's what redirects are for.
  • Wikipedia doesn't adopt this, it's true. However, not only is Wookieepedia not Wikipedia, Wikipedia also has Dooku under Count Dooku, Grievous under General Grievous, and Thrawn under Grand Admiral Thrawn. I think we can all agree that we don't want a naming policy like that.

This just covers nicknames, partial names, or other things that aren't the character's "real" name. Translated or foreign-language names like Aaylas'ecura and Mando'ade are a different matter. I don't fall one way or another on those. - Lord Hydronium 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

I want to vote for "The most commonly used name which could be considered the character's full name, as of the last chronological appearance, excluding ranks and titles," but I'm not sure that either of the last two options match that. My criteria would give, I think:
"Palpatine" rather than "Darth Sidious", since he used it more often and more openly
"Aalya Secura" rather than "Aalyas'ecura", since that's how it was usually written
"Grievous" rather than that Kaleesh name I can't spell, since he seems to have adopted and used a new name for the last, and most historically prominent, years of his life
"Mitth'raw'nuruodo" rather than "Thrawn", since as Coop keeps telling us, Thrawn was more of a nickname, while using his full name is more like having his first name and surname listed.
"Jabba Desilijic Tiure" rather than just "Jabba" (which is just his first name) or "Jabba the Hutt" ("The Hutt" is a title, sort of)
"Dooku" rather than "Count Dooku" or "Darth Tyrannus" (see Palpatine and Jabba above for reasoning)
"Bane" or "Darth Bane" rather than "Dessel", since he abandoned his old identity (whether Darth counts as a title or as part of the name is a bit of an issue, though.)
"Leia Organa Solo" rather than "Leia Organa" or (ye gods) "Leia Skywalker", since she took her husband's surname, and never went by her technical birthname
Coincidentally, except for Ms. Secura, this is where all of those articles currently are! 8)
Note that this may apply to the names of vehicles and organizations as well. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree on all those. As I said on the Aayla page, I'm taking more of a Devil's Advocate stance there since I think both names have valid points. And I think the second option fits that best; I picked that, and I agree with your rationale there. "At time of death" is a little off as, well, not all of these characters are dead. A few other articles to consider besides the obvious:
Wilhuff Tarkin - Rarely called by his full name, and most often known as "Governor Tarkin", "Grand Moff Tarkin", or just "Tarkin". If we adopt most well-known name, do we pick one of those over the current title?
Ditto with most of the first names for movie characters, really. Firmus Piett, Kendal Ozzel, Lorth Needa, Maximillian Veers - should these all be put under their last names? Winter Retrac Celchu is a similar case for last name; almost everything calls her just "Winter".
Non-Thrawn people who go by nicknames. Fixer, Deak, Gryph, Hobbie.
Code names for people whose real names are known. Blackhole, Tiree.
- Lord Hydronium 00:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. If most-common names win, then a hell of a lot of articles would be moved to pointless titles. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If we refine it to "most common full names last used" or something, though, it works out better. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. First off, by "full name", I don't necessarily mean "full, entire name." What I mean is some form of personal name + surname (or, for Chiss, I suppose, the whole triple-barrelled deal with the apostrophes.)

So, Winter Retrac Celchu would not be at Winter (not her full name), Winter Retrac (a full birth name, by which I mean both surname and personal name, but not her last known name), or Targeter (an alias or nickname). If, hypothetically, she were born with the middle name "Susan" but she rarely if ever used it (maybe it was mentioned in one comic book issue but never referred to again), she would likewise not be at Winter Susan Retrac, Winter Susan Retrac Celchu, Winter Susan "Targeter" Celchu, etc., because although these would be full names, they would also be very uncommon.
Similarly, since Leia is almost always called Leia Organa Solo rather than Leia Solo, that should be title of her article (and not her former names Leia Organa or Leia Skywalker.)
This would follow the convention of Wikipedia and other real-world encyclopedias, which usually title biographical articles by using the most common/recognizable form of the person's full name (Bill Clinton rather than William Jefferson Clinton, Dan Quayle instead of James Danforth Quayle, J.R.R. Tolkien rather than John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, etc.) I know Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia, but we can follow their policies anyway sometimes. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I see your point there. To clarify, what do you count as part of the full name? First and surnames, obviously, and you include maiden names in there as well. For Hutts, do the kajidic name (like Desilijic) and the family name (I guess that's what Tiure is) both count? Nicknames and aliases, I agree, should not be included in the title (no Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi). True middle names I think are rare enough that we can make special cases of them if need be. The only one I can think of is Leia Amidala Skywalker, and there's no evidence she still has that middle name, so no need to worry about it. - Lord Hydronium 03:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Derek Klivian, too. Wikipedia standards would put him at Hobbie Klivian; agree, disagree? - Lord Hydronium 03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • We'd include the maiden name for Leia and for Mara Jade Skywalker because that's what everyone calls them: I honestly don't know if that's the case with other married women. My "Winter" example presumes she follows the same practice as Leia and Mara, and uses her maiden name and husband's name as a double surname. If she were a real person, she might have simply kept her name the same after marriage or dropped her maiden name entirely. This is something we might have to decide on a case-by-case basis, though with Winter, Beru Whitesun Lars, and Shmi Skywalker Lars, it seems the double surname is what we're using by default. As for Hutts, they seem to have a double family name too. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As for Hobbie: seems as though Hobbie is a nickname, rather than something derived from his real name, so we'd keep it at Derek unless it's revealed his full name is "Derek Hobbes Klivian" or something. Other special cases: Hekis Durumm Perdo Kolokk Baldikarr Thun is notable for having a long stupid name, so he would be there rather than Hekis Thun. I'm not sure which part of Hart-and-Parn Gorra-Fiolla is her surname, but her full name is obviously not Fiolla. —Silly Dan (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why everyone (well, all four people who have commented here) are so anti-nickname. If it's the common name, use it. Here's the rationale for using the most common form of the name: 1) It increases our Google rating. A page's title counts for a lot in increasing search rankings, and 99% of web users who want info on Thrawn are probably not searching for Meme'Mewtwo'Whosit. A Google Search bears me out. The Wikipedia article (named "Grand Admiral Thrawn") shows up as hit #6 for the search word "Thrawn". The Wookieepedia entry isn't even in the top 50. 2) Redirects, while good things, should be avoided. I've shown that the majority of Wookieepedia editors are already linking to the most common form of a name. I've already posted these statistics, but as of yesterday, Jabba Desilijic Tiure had 97 links, while Jabba the Hutt had 370 (Jabba had 116). Redirects are ugly, and perhaps jarring to new users. 3) Accepted Wikipedia practice is thus for editors who know better to avoid redirects by using piped links like this: [[Meiojakjidoji'dhio'doi|Thrawn]]. I would hope people here would not lean too heavily on redirection as a crutch. Lord Hydronium actually made my point for me in the Talk:Mitheo'dkojei'ioejf page: "I'm sure some of those Thrawn links were written by some of the very people in this debate. Thrawn is just easier to type." In short, precision for the sake of precision is not worth the extra difficulty for people to link to and find a page. There's a reason the Wikipedia page is located at Billy the Kid, and it's the same reason we should be using Jabba the Hutt. — SavageBob 14:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are you so opposed to redirects? If anything, they're helpful to those searching for Thrawn or Jabba the Hutt. If someone searches for one of those, they'll be redirected to the proper Mitth'raw'nuruodo or Jabba Desilijic Tiure pages, where they'll see the proper name right there in the article. And yes, Thrawn is easier to type, but that doesn't mean that becomes the title of the article. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirected titles hurt our Google rankings. It's great to have a really good article on Thrawn, but if it's located at a weird title, no one's ever going to find it by using a normal search engine. The text of the article is not affected by the article title; keep that in mind. So if you want to call him Mithi'dio'whatever in the first line, that's perfectly reasonable. I'm just arguing against using that as the title for the sake of helping us reach out, get more exposure, attract new contributors. And to make it easier on the editors, of course, so we don't have to type odd, long links to articles. There will always be at least a sizeable contingent of us here who got our starts on Wikipedia where redirects are avoided like the plague. :) — SavageBob 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While you do have a point, if someone was looking for the Mitth'raw'nuruodo article here, they could just search for "Wookieepedia" or "Star Wars Wikipedia", and then search for Thrawn here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think his point is that doesn't help people who've never heard of this site who are searching for info via google. It only helps people who already know enough to find our wiki and want to find Thrawn (or Jabba, or whatever) info from us. On the other hand, while I understand that it hurts our google ranking, I'm not convinced that the benefits of using "Jabba the Hutt" or "Princess Leia" for main titles outweigh the benefits of using full names where available (even if those benefits are mostly just vague esthetics.) —Silly Dan (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's the thing. People probably search for "Princess Leia" more that "Leia Organa" in the first place. We can't have it at Princess Leia. So, no matter what's decided, the Google ranking will still be low on some articles. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Precisely. And "Princess Leia" makes as much sense as "Jabba the Hutt". For Google searches, there's the same problem with Mara Jade, and all the movie names I mentioned above. Who's going to search for "Firmus Piett"? But no one I think wants it at "Admiral Piett", or even worse, just "Piett". If we're setting a Wiki-wide possibility, we have to think of all the cases. And adopting "Jabba the Hutt" style titling is logically adopting all those examples I mentioned above. Again, I don't see why a Star Wars information site should have less informative titles for its articles. - Lord Hydronium 00:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
          • As I see it, if we rename all these articles, it might increase our Google ranking, but that decreases our status as an encyclopedia. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
            • We shouldn't work towards the lowest common denominator (google). What we should do is have an active campaign to link articles from wikipedia to here. It won't help our google ranking (which I don't care about) but it will at least let people get to the characters here via google indirectly. Wikipedia being the middle man so to speak.
              • I also don't care about Google. Personally, we should have this Wikicity in mind for this issue, not Google. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Two or three of you just seem to have your mind deadset against the idea of using common names, so you'll come up with any excuse to not do it. "I don't care" or that it's the "lowest common denominator" and "me too". That's fine, but you are seriously cutting traffic to this site down with this elitism. You also are not realizing that the article title doesn't really mean all that much. You can call the character Jabba Desilijic Tiure (a really dumb name, but whatever, WEG) in the first line of the article and it won't matter one bit. So, basically, if you want to ignore making the site more well-known and more trafficked, by all means, stick with the obscure names that only diehard Star Wars fans will ever search for. I get the feeling that for many of you, this site is more about what you can get out of it (i.e., you having a good time stroking your inner fanboy) than it is about creating a good, accessible encyclopedia that the common, non-diehard Star Wars fan will find useful. Obscure names = obscure website; redirects are ugly. I can't offer much more argument, and if it's the attitude of the two or three anti-common-name people that they don't care about attracting more editors and that they don't care about redirection, then so be it. Your journey to the dark side will be complete. (As if you couldn't tell by that last comment, by the way, anything you may construe as an insult herein is not intended as such; I have nothing but wikilove, and it is not my intent to offend anyone.) — SavageBob 21:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Wow, I sense some serious anger issues. Just because you're not getting your way doesn't mean you yell at everyone for voicing their opinions. This is Star Wars Wikipedia, a community where we can vote on things. Now that you're loosing the vote, you get upset. Chill already. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed my tongue-in-cheek comment about the dark side? I am anyting but angry, my good man. Others in this forum are coming off as belligerant, but I will not say exactly who. And the argument is hardly against me, as only three or four people are conversing here. Also, be careful not to equate majority with consensus; they are not the same. But at any rate, it's hard to come to consensus when no one participates in the discussion, you know? Now, perhaps we should refrain from ad hominem attacks and armchair psychoanalysis and get back to not debating this issue. :P — SavageBob 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm just waiting for some more people to vote. Six out of this entire community isn't good. But you must understand, we should not worry about Google in this. The point of Star Wars Wikipedia is to give as much information as possible. Having "Princess Leia" or "Jabba the Hutt" as article titles isn't exactly good for this. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I honestly don't see the problem with Jabba the Hutt, since from an IU perspective that's probably what he was most commonly known as. As to Leia, in an IU perspective her she would probably be most commonly known as Leia Organa Solo. Anyway, we aspire to keep an IU line, and yet we want to be user-friendly (which is of course pretty much OOU). Now, this is a kinda paradox and there will be clashes between the two. However, in my opinion, using the most commonly known names is compatible with both the IU and OOU perspectives of Wookieepedia. I must admit that I tend to agree with Bob's "stroking the inner fanboy" argument, no offence intended here.KEJ 22:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm just waiting for an option to be added I can vote for. "Birth name" is no good at all, since nearly every character whose birth name differs from their later names is much more well known, in universe and out, by that later name. "Name at time of death" isn't an option I like, partly because it's badly phrased (it should be "name at time of last known appearance"), partly because it might not be the best known name in all circumstances, and partly because if some character changes their name in an upcoming novel it might constitute a spoiler. "Most common name" is closer to what I'd go for, except that I don't like the idea of putting too many nicknames, partial names, or names w/titles and ranks as a title for a biography. (Yeah, that's my inner pedantic fanboy talking. I wouldn't even spend time here if it weren't for him! 8) ) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • To the people on the "common name" side, what do you propose we do about the examples I mentioned above? Are we going to move Wilhuff Tarkin to Grand Moff Tarkin, Governor Tarkin, or just Tarkin? Because all of those are more common. Most Google searches will be for Mara Jade instead of Mara Jade Skywalker, so are we going to move that? Winter Retrac Celchu to Winter? Will Cronal be at Blackhole? I'm genuinely curious as to how all this is going to work if we go through with that way, because this policy will affect a lot of articles, not just Thrawn and Jabba. - Lord Hydronium 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting addendum...Wikipedia's article on Cronal isn't at his most common name of "Blackhole", but rather at the less common, real name of "Cronal". - Lord Hydronium 22:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I bet that's mostly because black hole has a real-world meaning which is roughly five bazillion times more encyclopedic. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One question on Google: pages titled "Mara Jade Skywalker" or "Jabba Desilijic Tiure" should still appear towards the top of a "Mara Jade" or a "Jabba" search, shouldn't they? —Silly Dan (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To anwer Lord Hydronium: I wouldn't have a problem with stipulating that the page title should be what the character was most widely known as in universe (at time of death, if you want to add one more restriction). That would mean Jabba the Hutt, Thrawn, Leia Organa Solo, Mara Jade or Mara Jade Skywalker (either would be fine), Winter (though the other names would be okay, I guess), and Wilhuff Tarkin. I agree that including titles is probably not the best idea, since titles change over time (like with Thrawn and Tarkin). So, in practice, this is something of a compromise between the two options above. Silly Dan, would this be more similar to what you're willing to vote for? "Most commonly known name of the character in-universe, sans titles"? — SavageBob 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a very good "compromise". Winter had a full name. As for Thrawn, the vote is now in favor of names at time of death (four to three). Therefore, that would be Mitth'raw'nuruodo if that side won. And as for Jabba, if we move his article to Jabba the Hutt, I guess every Hutt is going to be moved to "(name) the Hutt". That shouldn't be, because they also had full names. Using nicknames or most well-known names is a very bad idea, in my case. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just want to point out to Jack that this is a consensus track, not about "winning". Majority vote only counts if it's an overwhelming majority, as in the last naming consensus track. Which is really why we need more people to participate; seven people don't represent nearly the entirety of thought on this Wiki. SavageBob: To tell the truth, I don't see how that's any different from what you were originally proposing. It's still only using those half names for many characters. And it still leaves the question of nicknames and aliases used in-universe; like I mentioned, even Wikipedia doesn't put Cronal at Blackhole (or since as Silly Dan pointed out that name is more commonly used for the object, it doesn't have him as "Blackhole (Star Wars)"). Gryph, Fixer, and Tiree fall into that category as well. Silly Dan's suggestion is the most commonly used full name, which includes surnames, family names, and the entirety of Chiss names. - Lord Hydronium 00:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, Lord Hyrdonium. Personally, I think Silly Dan's suggestion, which is mainly used now anyway, should stay. Surnames, family names, Chiss names, and full Hutt names should be used in the title. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • First, I am hardly surpised that Nebulax has rejected my proposal flat out. :P 2) It is significantly different from my initial proposal. I originally was lobbying for "most common name out of universe". This would put articles at Grand Admiral Thrawn, Princess Leia, and the like. This new proposal is that names should be most common name in universe and without titles at time of death. That gives us Mara Jade Skywalker instead of Mara Jade, Leia Organa Solo instead of Princess Leia, etc. I'd imagine that this is very similar to how things are done now except in the cases of a few characters with weird alien names or who go primarily by nicknames. So, no, I don't have a problem with Fixer or Winter or Tiree. As for what Wikipedia does, I don't know. When I write for Wikipedia, I write about real-world stuff, so I don't know how the SW Wikiproject handles things. I do know that their articles are locatd at "Lewis Carroll", "Mark Twain" and "Billy the Kid", though. — SavageBob 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, I have a problem with having Winter Retrac Celchu at Winter and Laze Loneozner at Fixer. Each of them had their own names. The problem is, all of these characters had names that they used that were not what they were commonly called. The use of their names at death in the article is the best thing, in my opinion, for Star Wars Wikipedia. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
            • "In my opinion, nicknames are what redirects are for". I couldn't agree with you more, StarNeptune. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to SavageBob: My preferred compromise would be "Most commonly known name in universe, sans titles, with later names preferred to earlier names, and full names preferred to partial names or nicknames." I think this is closer in spirit to the "Most commonly used name" you voted for than anything else, but it would differ on "Jabba Desilijic Tiure" vs. "Jabba the Hutt" and possibly "Mitth'raw'nuruodo" vs. "Thrawn" (an arguement can be made that, like the stereotypical immigrant to Ellis Island, he Basic-ized his name when he started working around humans, making Thrawn his later full name, but I don't expect any one else here to buy it — and if I did want to get into that arguement, it might be best to confine it to that talk page once consensus has been reached here.) But it's also important to point out that only a minority of characters have more than one name, and most of them were best known by some version of the last full name they used, so this is only an issue for a few characters. Technical articles like starship classes might get tricky if we extend these rules to those articles, but I'm staying out of that discussion. (As for Billy the Kid, his Wikipedia article gives me the impression his real name is a bit uncertain anyway, so Billy the Kid would also be a compromise.) —Silly Dan (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, as for Jabba and Thrawn, they were still known by people by the Jabba Desilijic Tiure and Mitth'raw'nuruodo up until they died, right? Someone said on the Mitth'raw'nuruodo talk page that he was still known by his Chiss name by members of his Household Phalanx. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the "name at time of death" option partly for the reason already stated by Silly Dan, it is poorly worded, and also because death in the Star Wars universe isn't nearly as final as death in the real world. Multiple deaths and retcons will cause problems with stability since its quite possible that some writer will come along and say that Thrawn's real name when he died wasn't "Thrawn" or "Mitth'raw'nuruodo" it was actually "Arthur Thrawnzarelli." Occording to this policy, the article title will have to change and that kind of article hop-scotch would make the encyclopedia awkward to use.

While "most-commonly known" may not be ideal, I think it's the least problematic of the options given. It is, of course, still possible that article names would have to change over time, but I think the chances are greatly reduced using this option because it's not often that a character will have multiple common names each with a similar degree of popularity. I would stipulate that the article title should not include either titles or nicknames since those aren't really appropriate for article titles of character entries.--Rudy 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "Arthur Thrawnzarelli"? Boo. -- SFH 22:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll say. But with most commonly known names, there's a problem. Most commonly known by who? What if someone was most commonly known as something by the Galactic Alliance but most commonly known as something else by the Imperial Remnant? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that the issue is that the debates are between a lot of different factors: Aayla Secura vs. Aaylas'ecura is a comparison between the common basic-ized version and the rarer, more technically accurate Rylothean, Grevious vs. Q-dude (can't spell that) is about the original name vs. the name of the much more well known persona, Palpatine vs. Darth Sidious is about two different personas that are nonetheless too closely tied to seperate, and so on. What we need is recognition that there will never be a one-sentence policy. Rather, we should try to come up with a comprehensive list of characteristics the names can have, and then compare them, instead of adopting a dogmatic policy. Such characteristics would include:
  1. Name given at birth
  2. Name used in material of first appearance
  3. Name used at time of death
  4. Name of official adoption
  5. Technically acurate version of basic-ized name
  6. Name most commonly known by OOU people
  7. Name most commonly known by confidants
  8. Name most commonly known by IU populace

Feel free to add later characteristics directly onto that list. If this gains momentum and we get a list, we can start discussing whether 1 and 4 trumps 2 and 3 or whatever.--Erl 00:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (edited for stuckupness)

  • Erl, I think we should see what happens with this first. If you're suggesting that each character's article title is based off one of those examples and isn't used for all articles, we shouldn't do that. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not arguing that. It's just that the trichotomy vote above seems shortsighted. There are a number of reasons for each name, and so in my opinion, sometimes name at birth should be used, sometimes name at death should be used, and sometimes, most well known name should be used, because they are backed up by other factors. Mitth'raw'nuruodo, for example, is not nearly as well known as Thrawn, but its also the technically more accurate version of a basic-ized name, the name well known by confindants, and so on.--Erl 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's the thing, we can't have every single article's title under a separate category. It needs to be unified under one category. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I recognize that need. But again, I think that, for example, I would definitely choose "Darth Bane" over "Dessel," despite my nickname-hating, because it has so many things going for it: name at first appearance, name at time of death (barring later revelations), name of official adoption, name most commonly known OOU, name most commonly known by confidants, and name known by IU populace. So I think a five-word policy is a bad one. That's not to say we should address it case-by-case. Rather, a policy I'd go for would be along the lines of "non-basic-ized version of name used at date of death, except in the case of severe personality changes (e.g. Irek Ismaren)," instead of "name at date of death"--Erl 01:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Largely like what Silly Dan said above. He pointed out that "name at death" is to dogmatic, and loses a number of subtleties.--Erl 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Geez, tough crowd. Anyway, I think Silly Dan came up with a pretty good one-sentence policy when he stated: "Most commonly known name in universe, sans titles, with later names preferred to earlier names, and full names preferred to partial names or nicknames." We will still have some debate about characters who may have two (or more) "common" names, but I think it will narrow the debate quite a bit rather than going off into tangents about obscure names at birth and death. --Rudy 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, most commonly known name at time of death would be good, but some characters were probably known by two or more names, not including nicknames. However, in this case, we should go by alien names, such as Jabba Desilijic Tiure and Mitth'raw'nuruodo, unless they completely abandoned their non-Basic name (like Aayla Secura with Aaylas'ecura and Grievous with Qymaen jai Sheelal). Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sounds good to me. (sorry if I came off as pompous or w/e up there). Should we put that up as a possiblity for a vote?--Erl
        • Well, I think we should wait until this part's over, and then, if the name at time of death wins, we could have another vote to see what we should do with people who were known by two names at the time of their deaths. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Do you really want to do this again? Especially considering that we haven't resolved the Darth issue yet, and there are probably lots of other ones--Erl 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
            • It won't be the same vote, though. We shouldn't do it now because there are already a lot of votes up there. Adding in more things would only screw it up. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I see your point, but won't the results of the later vote supercede these?--Erl 00:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes, but we shouldn't add in new things in the middle of this vote. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • I really don't see why not, if people think some sort of compromise would result in something closer to general agreement than either of the options already present. This is a "consensus track", not a presidential election. —Silly Dan (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree, as I'm a bit confused as to who is actually supporting what option. "Most common name" is being interpreted several different ways, as is the second option. It pains me to see everyone flat out ignoring Google rankings with this vote (it's greatly sacrificing accessibility in the interest of pedantism, in my opinion), but if forced, I'd support something akin to Silly Dan's proposal/opinion, provided that when a character has an alien name and a Basic name, the Basic name takes precedence. — SavageBob 14:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
            • As far as alien and Basic names, it should really be the alien name unless they never used it or got rid of it, the reason being that "Thrawn" and "Jabba the Hutt" were nicknames, like Fixer was. Having nicknames in titles is not good. However, if the character in question actually changed their name to something else (like Qymaen jai Sheelal and Grievous), there later name would not be considered a nickname. Thrawn and Jabba the Hutt are more of nicknames than actual names. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I understand that argument, but what makes them "nicknames" rather than simply Basic-friendly versions of their alien names? It would seem that a general-purpose encyclopedia would favor common names, which in this case means Basic-friendly ones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Thrawn served as an Imperial officer under the name "Thrawn", didn't he? I still favor Jabba the Hutt, but I understand that that is more of an nickname than a Basic-friendly one. With Thrawn, Aayla Secura et al, it's not so clearcut. — SavageBob 20:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Well, it wasn't a nickname really, but it was close to it. In fact, we could call it a "slang name". Some people don't want to call him by his full name, so they used the shortened version/core name, Thrawn. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • It was neither. It was his first name. For the Chiss, the familiar, shortened version of the name, is the middle section, not the first section, of the whole name. We don't have an article on "Luke" instead of "Luke Skywalker," do we? As for Aalya Secura, it is not clear if its a mispronunciation or a deliberate renunciation of Twi'lek culture (cause IIRC she really doesn't like them). If it's deliberate, it should be removed. If its something she tolerates, it shouldn't be. The question is really "What do they think of themselves as?" IMO--Erl 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • Well, "Thrawn" was a core name. While it could be considered a first name, it was similar to a nickname in ways, especially in the fact that people probably didn't want to call him Mitth'raw'nuruodo because it might have been hard to pronounce. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's beside the point because we agree on it. Focusing on what we disagree on (I will divide this wiki . . . not unite it!) I agree with Dan, Bob, et. al. about adding a compromise category to the vote--Erl 23:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
                        • You're right. And go ahead and add the compromise category in. With this new choice, should we put a line through our previous vote and add in a new one? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
                          • Only if you want to change it . . . . ;)--Erl
  • Now I'm confused. Is the wordy one the one that will keep Thrawn at Mitth'raw'nuruodo or the one that will dumb it down? —Darth Culator (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It does say "full names preferred," so I'd interpret it as keeping his article at the long form of his name. If my option were policy, it would come down to an arguement over whether Thrawn was a new full name, or simply a shortened version of a full name he was still using. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, Mitth'raw'nuruodo is the full name, with Thrawn as the simplified version of it, so if your opinion was policy, it would stay at Mitth'raw'nuruodo. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Hey Admiral, you forgot to cross out your old vote.--Erl 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I added another option that prefers nicknames and partial names to full ones when those nick- and partial names are more well known. Otherwise, it's the same as the proposal above it. I still contend that using the non-"dumbed down" names is sacrificing accessibility for pedantism and will not do much to grow this wiki, since no one will ever find it. — SavageBob 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I agree that it won't help grow this website, but I feel the professionalism of the title will help add to the stature of the site. Also, I would prefer not to concede to the idiot masses. ;)--Erl 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I agree with Erl. We're an encyclopedia, not in a contest to get the most people here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
                • It's very funny that on Wookieepedia, fanboyish elitism seems to be de rigeur, whereas on Wikipedia, another sort of anti-fan elitism is more common. And I use the term "fanboy" as a term of endearment; I wouldn't be here if I weren't one myself! (In both cases, it's the masses who suffer, but I'm not going to give up my sour grapes on this naming issue. :P ) — SavageBob 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • As an encyclopedia, it is our right to present the information with their last known complete name, not a nickname, in the article title. Having nicknames in the article titles is worse that having less people coming here from a Google search. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • In your opinion, of course. But, really, you don't need to try to rebut every single comment someone makes who doesn't agree with you. It's gotten kind of silly, really. — SavageBob 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • I have to agree, losing Google rank is a problem with an "avoid nicknames" or "use full names" policy. However, it will only make it harder to find a handful of our articles on Google. Some, like Mara Jade Skywalker or Jabba Desilijic Tiure, contain elements of a more common name like "Mara Jade" or "Jabba", so wouldn't the Google rank be affected less? Others are so obscure that only a few dozen pages on the web would mention them. Mitth'raw'nuruodo is almost the only exception I can think of. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • "...you don't need to try to rebut every single comment someone makes who doesn't agree with you". No, that's not the case. I'm just stating that since we are an encyclopedia, the article titles should reflect that. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Right, it will only affect a few articles (but it will affect searches for Jabba the Hutt, for example, which is the name 99% of the English-speaking public knows him as). I'm not sure how long these consensus tracks are allowed to go, but it appears that most people are opting for precision over accessibility (the other prong of my argument is that best practices are not to link to redirects in articles, and 90% of editors around here seem to be doing that with Thrawn & co.). But I've made my points; reason was spoken here, and the record will reflect that. ;P — SavageBob 13:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • SavageBob, while I agree that you have a point, I once again say that Wookieepedia is an encyclopedia. While our Google rankings might change with this, there are more benefits with having articles with full names and not nicknames. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • And about the redirects. I've been thinking. Couldn't it be possible to make a bot to change all links to redirects to pipe links to the proper subject? I should probably ask Sikon about it, but just wanted to throw that idea out there. As for the issues, well, I believe I've made my fanboyish eletism sufficiently well known.--Erl 00:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
                        • You mean change the Google links into redirects? Because I'm a little confused. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
                          • No, I think he means change every instance of [[Thrawn]] to [[Mitth'raw'nuruodo|Thrawn]]. We could go ask Sikon or SparqMan to get their bots to do it. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
                            • Exactly, Silly Dan. And thanks for cutting me off as I was editing . . . ;). No, but Savage Bob (is it Savage or Bob for short?) is right. It's bad housekeeping to let all of these pages link to redirects. But that can be solved, instead of submitted to.--Erl 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
                            • Damn you, fanboys! :) The bot is a good idea. Call it Thrawnbot, maybe. Or should it be Mitth'raw'nuruodobot? Silly Dan's version of the compromise position will also affect Salacious B. Crumb/Salacious Crumb and Whatevertheheckhisnamereallyis/Labria. More minor characters, given, but there are probably several others we're forgetting about. And then, authors will likely keep doing this sort of thing. Watch, in Tales from the Streets of Mos Eisley, we'll learn that the Tonika sisters are really the Tonnik'kaka'kaka'ka sisters, and that Figrin Da'an is really a code name for someone named Pleyitag Insa'am. As for the short form of my name, go with what you like. Bob, Sav, Savage, SB, Mitth'raw'nuruodo; it's all good. — SavageBob 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
                              • Salacious Crumb's middle initial could be omitted (we'd use the most common form of a full name, which needn't include middle initials unless they were used often) while Labria would probably have to stay at Kardue'sai'Malloc, unless someone wants to argue that he lived as Labria for a substantially longer period of his adult life. This policy won't stop arguements, perhaps, so much as provide a rule to help settle any new one. As for new name revelations...we should probably just lobby Leland Chee, Abel G. Peña, Pablo Hidalgo, et al to keep them to a minimum! 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
                                • Ditto to both of Dan's comments. Also, Mitth'raw'nuruoBob, do you know how the Google searches prioritize? is there any way we can use the redirect page to fudge them?--Erl 13:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (De-indenting for ease of reading.) I wish I did, Erl. All I know is that for some reason, Google gives precedence to page titles at the expense of body copy. Searching Google for Samuel Clemens doesn't yield a Wikipedia result until #11, whereas a search for Mark Twain gives Wikipedia the #7 rank. For us, who knows? There are so many Star Wars fan sites out there. In other words, on these contentious names, I don't think there's any way to increase our Google ranking short of putting pages at common titles. :( — SavageBob 14:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, sometimes I've seen pages loaded with key words on the Google page excerpt below their hyperlink. They have as many words related to their topic as possible, clearly to try to up their number of hits. So if we could key-term load the redirect pages without messing them up, that might deal with the search problem. But I really have no idea. Could we get Sikon or Sparqman in here to help clarify this?—Erl 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • SavageBob, the thing is, you're right about the fansites. We're not exactly famous enough to have Wookieepedia at the top of the list, no matter what they search for or what the article's name is. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, but that's not true! We're hit #5 for Mitth'raw'nuruodo! :P — SavageBob 21:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • You mean sixth. Anyway, there's probably some where we're not that high, but it doesn't really matter. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, no, it does matter, and it is important, because it draws new editors, (and we all love newbies, don't we?). I just don't think it's more important than my fanboy delusions of granduer. But I still want to try to find a solution that will address all reasonable concerns--Erl 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
              • "...it draws new editors...". Yes, but there's two sides to that: Vandalizers and people we can trust. Nonetheless, we do need new editors (not that any of the currect ones aren't good, because they are some of the best people ever), but I don't think that the Google search alone will be our only way of attracting new people. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                • What you said is true, and I agree that we are more likely to get a reliable editor from a TFN or Abel G Pena link than from a "Princess Leia Naked" search on Google, but publicity is almost always beneficial. I suspect we agree on that too, and my point is not that we need to get Google hits at all costs, but simply it would be nice if we could take this opportunity to find some way to increase our profile w/o lowering our tone.--Erl 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • Dizfactor, yes, I suppose so. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
                      • In the words of the eternal Jon Stewart, "What the hell?" Or more specifically, what is this Dizfactor of which you speak?--Erl 17:30, 3 April 2006 (PDT)
                        • Amen to that. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
                          • Ok, now the Admiral's just screwing with me--Erl 11:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
                            • Dizfactor is one of the people who voted above for proposal #3. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
                              • Proposal #3? Are you taking that from the five options on top, or something else? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan, and yes, he's counting the # of proposals. I think the Aayla question depends on whether she rejected her Ryll name or just let people mispronounce it. We could probably bug TastyTaste about it.--Erl 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As for the name "Aaylas'ecura", I believe someone on the article's talk page said that she never used that name. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Right. That, and I meant to say proposal #4. Oops. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, since the discussion is two weeks old, and the vote's gone to 1/2/0/14/1, can we close this discussion soon? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It's over, so let's just end this now for good. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2006 (PDT)
    • NEVEEEEEERRRR!!!!! You shall not triumph!!! I WILL . . . er . . . okay, I've been soundly trounced. I'm no admin, but this should be closed. — SavageBob 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, then, Most commonly known name in universe, sans titles, with later names preferred to earlier names, and full names preferred to partial names or nicknames wins. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid

I prefer a combination of birth name and chosen name. Greivous chose/accepted his new name, same with Chewbacca, etc. I also think married characters should go with their original names until we see an in source use of a new name (have we seen Winter as Winter Celchu?). --SparqMan 00:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think either my suggestion or SavageBob's would cover the combination you're seeking, in most circumstances. As for married women, it seems we're assuming that we should always use compound last names based on Mara Jade Skywalker and Leia Organa Solo's examples. Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Idea

First of all, I'd just like to appologize for throwing this in the works once consensus now seems to have been reached, the the idea has only just came to my head and is only now able to be achieved. I propose having the articles themselves at their most well known (by the fans) names, ie. Mitth'raw'nuruodo at Thrawn etc. and simply use the brand spanking new {{title}} template to title them as their actual (full) names. This would cause the Window title bar to still display things like "Thrawn - Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki" but would have the actual article title (what we see on the page) as Mitth'raw'nuruodo. This way, we could have the articles at their proper names, as well as increase our google search results. Just an idea, and feel free to leave feedback. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's a good idea. The way I see it, the title template is meant to circumvent technical limitations, for example, allowing lowercase initial letters or italicized ship names. Others can disagree, though. - Sikon [Talk] 08:51, 6 April 2006 (PDT)
    • I also think it's not a good idea, for the same reasons Sikon listed. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't care either way. All that matters to me is the body of the article, and the big letters at the top.--Erl 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that's what my idea would accomplish, as well as upping us in search engines seeing as the page title would still technically be, again as an example, simply "Thrawn". But if others don't like the idea then I don't mind, it was just a quick thought I had. :) —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The thing is, the Title template is for what Sikon had said: technical limitations. We should add a whole different thing to it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:CT_Archive/Article_naming_conventions"