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 or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:02, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be a good idea to bring up the possibility of using multiple character names in infoboxes for characters with more than one canonical name. I propose this: characters with both a normal given name (such as Anakin Skywalker) and a Sith name that usually has Darth in it (such as Darth Vader) would have both names listed in the infobox under the picture, separated by a slash, with the "final status" name (the article name) listed first (Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader for example). If the character has any nicknames or other alternate names, these wouldn't be listed; only the "normal" name and the "Sith" name. This would apply to Anakin, as well as Palpatine, Dooku, Jacen, Revan, Kreia, and all sorts of other characters.

I narrowed my initial idea down to characters with a "Darth" identity in order to make the policy easier to follow and to avoid the potential for ridiculousness (so that we don't have nonsense like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader/Ani/Skyguy, etc. or end up listing all of Winter's alter egos in her infobox).

Support Edit

As creator of this proposal. --Darthrai 04:54, December 2, 2009 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Less than 50 mainspace edits -- Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:37, December 2, 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure if users who aren't eligible to vote are even eligible to create CT measures to begin with. But your current mainspace edit total of 2 isn't enough for voting eligibility. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:37, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I actually like this idea. We already do something similar with clone troopers by giving both number and nickname when both are known (see CC-1119, CC-1138, CT-26-6958, and CT-6734 for some FA examples). Also, sometimes a character has their article at their Sith name, yet they were known by their regular name for most of their life, and I feel the infobox should reflect that (Darth Caedus comes to mind here, as he was known as Caedus for only a few months but as Jacen Solo for the vast majority of his life). Putting multiple names in the |name= field should be limited to only Sith names and clone nicknames, though. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 06:20, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Edit

Oppose Edit

1. As the creator of the current policy ;) Mauser^Comlink 05:10, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

   I think the infobox should list the title of the article as the main name under the image, which is defined by the naming policy. Adding other ones is unnecessary as the intro will already state the other names they have gone by. If anything could be added to the infobox it would be an "alias" field. But adding "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader" is both unnecessary and wouldn't look as good in my opinion either. Grunny ^(Talk) 10:38, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

   Per Grunny. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 10:47, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

   Per Grunny. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 10:56, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

2. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 12:17, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

   Weak oppose, but per Grunny. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 18:55, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

3. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:56, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Grunny. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:00, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

   Per Grunny. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:16, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

5. Per Grunny. CC7567 ^(talk) 08:03, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

   Master Jonathan's reasoning above sounds good but, when you think about it, you would have to change the main name used in the infobox to the character's real name with the Darth title, for example, as a nickname (alias etc, like the clone names below their numbers) because their real name is, well, their real name and not a nickname. In some cases like Caedus, the Darth name is the name used for the article and hence the infobox so Jacen would have to be put as the nickname which obviously isn't right (not that he should be called Jacen instead, the naming policy still applies). However, this isn't an issue for clones which we always name by number, if it is given, with their nickname below their number in the infobox title because their number is their real "name". You would either have to ignore the naming policy or have considerable inconsistency, neither of which are good things. Nayayen^(talk) 20:59, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

6. There are too many un-worked-out facets of the infobox proposal that could lead to trouble. I want a lot more thorough discussion before I vote for that. Are we going to get inane maiden-name entries (Mara Jade Skywalker: Also known as Mara Jade)? Is this going to become an avenue for every little alias someone used once to slip into the infobox, which would be ridiculous overkill and isn't really infobox worthy (Wedge Antilles: Also known as Fod Nobrin)? I don't think we should have aliases at all, and even if we have straight alternative names we need more guidelines laid down in advance than we've been given here. Havac 03:42, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
7. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 21:58, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
8. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 17:04, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, but change infoboxEdit

This option is to change the infobox to include an "alias" field wherein prominent aliases, nicknames, or code names can be included. It was created based upon Grunny's idea and to comply with proper and honest CT procedures.

1. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 20:12, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
2. Definitely. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 20:13, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
3. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 20:24, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
4. Well, since nobody else was supporting with me above, I'll switch my vote down here as this would work just as well. But, clones should be subjected to the same rules as all other characters as Fiolli said below, if only for consistency's sake. Also, the field's visible title should be something like "Also known as:" and not "Nicknames/aliases", as sometimes alternate names aren't nicknames (e.g. Jacen). —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 22:46, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
   • Why not create two fields, one for "Alias(es)" and one for "Also known as," and use as applicable? Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:08, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
     • That would work also and would actually be slightly better. :) —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 23:16, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
       • I personally think that "Also called" would be better in most respects. It doesn't make a distinction between nicknames or real names, just that they were other names that the person used.Nayayen^(talk) 10:59, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
5. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 10:04, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
6. Per my reasoning above. Grunny ^(Talk) 10:09, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
7. Per my comment above.Nayayen^(talk) 10:59, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Grunny's reasoning. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 11:03, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
9. I like this idea, but I would caution against adding separate fields for aliases and former names, etc. "Also known as" or "Also called" are fine for pretty much all purposes, it would seem to me. ~ SavageBob 16:48, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
10. I'm confident we can sort this without digging into the depths of insanity. Regarding Havac's comment, maiden names seems unlikely, but I don't have a problem with putting things like "Jenos Idanian" in an infobox field for aliases on Horn, etc. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 03:48, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
11. Likewise, I'm confident that this community will be able to apply a little common sense when using this and won't let the infobox plunge into the "depths of insanity," and that any disagreements over content can be settled through compromise and discussion, assuming, of course, the user has the ability to compromise. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:22, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
12. Per above. --Xd1358 ^Talk 18:26, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
13. You people say "insanity" like it's a bad thing. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 19:38, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
14. Something like this should be implemented for the starship infobox as well. Like for the Millenium Falcon/Stellar Envoy/YT 492727ZED/Hardwired/Wayward Son/Second Chance/Gone to Pieces. Keep in mind all of those are actual names, not aliases. But there are enough ships with name changes to warrant it. Darth Trayus ^{(Trayus Academy)} 00:31, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• I'm guessing that Wookieepedians don't want to prioritize Anakin over Vader; it's just that, due to the nature of wikis, we have to choose one over the other, and Anakin is better in the interest of canon. So, I think it would be good if we could do as much as we could to give multiple incarnations of the same characters equal treatment without sacrificing the quality or readability of articles; this would comply with, and reinforce, a neutral point of view IMO. --Darthrai 04:54, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with the nature of wikis. It has everything to do with the fact that the majority of users decided that's how it would be. They – to use your words – prioritized Anakin over Vader. It was the choice of the community. Also, this has nothing to do with NPOV. NPOV is about not being biased. Choosing to use a character's last known primary name is not biased. Anakin died as Anakin and was Anakin as a ghost. Jacen died as Caedus. Etc. There's no NPOV violation there. - Brandon Rhea ^(talk) 05:07, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
• I personally do not mind the idea, in principle. That said, we need to be consistent. Why do we include clone nicknames after linebreaks and not other names such as Darth Caedus<br />Jacen Solo? To me, this is a double standard. Either we do both or neither. I see no difference. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 19:55, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
  • Because clones used both names simultaneously and Darths did not? Mauser^Comlink 19:56, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
    • But, the clone nicknames are just that: nicknames. They are no different other nicknames or pet names used in the universe. It also isn't much different than Gara Petothel, who also bore the names Lara Notsil and Kirney Slane for substantial periods of time (even beyond code names). Why are those, especially Lara Notsil, not included in the box, then? — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 20:01, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
      • I can understand what Fiolli is saying. I wouldn't mind doing what Grunny suggests and adding an additional "Alias" or "Nickname" field to our character infoboxes, where these names can be placed instead. I figure that's a reasonable enough compromise. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:02, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
        • I can accept that, provided that the clones are subjected to it as well, for consistency. Of course, however, that is not actually an option in this CT. If that option is afforded, then I support that. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 20:07, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
          • I reckon it would be safe to create a new voting option. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:09, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes. An alias field could be useful. Though it would get a bit ungainly with people like Winter, but I'd find that more amusing than annoying. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 20:12, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
          • So, if we add "Alias" field to all character infoboxes, we could finally redirect all six Nom Anor's aliases to the main article? Also, can you promise that such field will not be used for thing like "Jabba the Hutt" on Jabba Desilijic Tiure's article? Mauser^Comlink 20:20, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
            • I can't personally promise, but as far as FAs, GAs and other articles I monitor, I believe something like that is frivolous. I just cannot speak on behalf of other users. Plus, I have fully supported redirecting aliases (unless shared) to the main character article. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 20:24, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

IMO, whether or not we should add a new infobox field and what to do with Aliases articles after that, should be a completely separate discussion, as it has very little to do with the original proposal. Mauser^Comlink 20:28, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

• You're the one who brought it up. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:33, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Havac, this new option really needs to be discussed in detail. I'm not going to vote for this if I don't know what exactly I'd be voting for. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 21:12, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
• I actually think the Aliases idea is okay, I'd support such a policy.--Darthrai 02:56, December 15, 2009 (UTC)