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 to keep the current naming conventions for royalty in place. Graestan(Talk) 23:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Wookiepedians! I am an established contributor to Wikipedia, specializing on articals specific to nobility, royalty, and history. Most recent acticals I have created include Welsh peers and Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages (of which is still on-going). I wish to propose that the naming conventions for Wookiepedia be standardized with regards to royalty and nobility here.
This, I feel, would polish Wookiepedia and follow well established precedent in English language practice in formating across all English language media outlets. Drachenfyre 06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"<First name> of <Location>" format
Occurs most often for monarchs (who often do not have, or do not use, last names). Try to use the most commonly used "Location" for this person's name, and only in the case this format is more often used than the usual "<First name> <Last name>" format.
Example: Jeanne of Flanders and Jeanne of Constantinople both refer to the same person. The first version is slightly more used, so that's the preferred article name.
Note that for monastics also the format "<First name> of <something else than Location>" exists. If a variant with a <Location> exists, that is the version of the name that is preferred as Wikipedia page name:
Teresa of Ávila, not "Teresa of Jesus" (translation of "Teresa de Jesús," the way she signed her letters and was known in her convent);
John of the Cross, translation of "Juan de la Cruz", no "of <Location>" available.
Sometimes the "of <Location>" part is differently formatted: "à Kempis" (in: Thomas à Kempis) would by many be perceived as a last name, while in fact it is "of Kempen" differently formatted. Such alternative format is however only used for a Wikipedia article title, when in English the name is nearly exclusively written in that form (compare: Thomas Becket and not Thomas à Becket).
Disambiguation purposes: for several monarchs and saints this is a great help to disambiguate; in other cases the ambiguity appears to persist, see for example: Elisabeth of Bohemia (disambiguation)
Wiki naming conventions generally follow well established standardized practices. Following internationally recognized practice in the English language media would further professionalize Wookiepedia in this regard.Drachenfyre 07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Per JMAS explicitly. We go by canon, and based our policies around it, for a reason; also, Wookieepedia was founded to get away from a lot of Wikipedia's article rules, among other things. I can foresee people saying "Leia of Alderaan" already… Greyman(Talk) 08:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
An ill-conceived CT. You want us to add fanon titles to articles based on assumptions that Lucas' nobility creations were based on those of real life, and this is supposed to make us look more professional? Please just drop the issue - it's not going to fly. Stick to Wikipedia if you don't understand that this is a separate entity with its own guidelines - for good reason. Also: article, Wookieepedia. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 12:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Anything else would be cruel. JorrelFraajic 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Not that this vote really counts for much now but, as JMAS said, Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia and Star Wars is not reality. Just because a convention is used here, doesn't it mean it will be on Coruscant. And it certainly doesn't mean it would be used on an alien world. Green Tentacle(Talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No new arguments from me. Pretty much per JMAS and GT and jSarek. Allow me to wave my WikiWookiee War Banner of No Original Research. Atarumaster88(Talk page) 19:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition to there being no canon evidence for this system being used in-universe, we have some evidence that the European standards for royal and noble titles aren't strictly followed: Dooku is never referred to as "Count Dooku of Serreno" or "Dooku, Nth Count of Serreno", and princesses and emperors alike are addressed as "Highness". —Silly Dan(talk) 11:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Name 'em what they're called, I say. -- Ozzel 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
How long is the vote for? A Week or more?Drachenfyre 07:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
A suggestion might be to familiarize yourself with Wookieepedia guidelines and operating procedures before proposing policy changes. But to answer your question, here. - JMASHey, it's me! 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion duely noted, and thank you for the link.Drachenfyre 07:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
@ Greyman: "We go by canon, and based our policies around it, for a reason; also, Wookieepedia was founded to get away from a lot of Wikipedia's article rules, among other things. I can foresee people saying "Leia of Alderaan" already…" Greyman(Talk) 08:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If it is in canon, then clearly that takes prededence. However, given that Lucas himself was clearly drawing on European concepts of Nobility and Royalty, as has most of the authors of canon, by extension we should follow the international precedent already established in instances not provided for clearly in Canon.
As for your example for Princess Leia, from the period of her adoption until her membership in the Alliance government, the artical may very well have been titled Leia of Alderaan. However, in Canon she has done FAR more, and may have become known as Leia Organa-Solo as the artical is currently headed. An example here is with the King of Bulgaria, who was elected as Prime Minister of Bulgaria (the Republic). As a child he was deposed by the Communists who overthrew the Constitutional Monarchy. Prior to that overthrow, he was known as Simon II of Bulgaria. After he was elected as Prime Minister, he was known as Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. And the artical in Wiki reflects this shift. So as Princess Leia did other things then represent her people, the artical would reflect that with Leia Organa Solo. There already exists precident for every circumstanceDrachenfyre 09:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification 9_9 No offence, but your little speech isn't changing my vote. We have a set-way of how things are done around here. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done here and my vote is not changing regardless of how much wiki-lawyering goes on. Again, per JMAS -- we are not Wikipedia. Greyman(Talk) 09:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I respect that Greyman.
There are additional examples as well. Prince Edward, Count of Wessex, the youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II. Prince Edward went by the professional name Edward Mountbatten-Windsor while he was a tv producer, then when by Edward Wessex in his business dealings once he became Earl of Wessex.
Clearly JMAS warned me that it would be pointless to offer improvements here. I should have heeded his warning more seriously. It is disparing that well established precident will be rejected in favor of a less then professional approach. No worries though, I will be sure to advise others on my expierences here.Drachenfyre 11:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I think he meant its pointless because it will obviously not pass. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 12:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ackbar is correct. I knew there wasn't a snowballs chance on Mustafar for this to pass. - JMASHey, it's me! 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
@ AdmirableAckbar and I need a name where is the fanon with applying the correct format for a noble or royal name? This is senseless to me.Drachenfyre 12:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Correct format in real life. Not necessarily so in Star Wars. Giving people titles that have not appeared in canon is fanon - regardless of however things are done in reality. I can't put it more simply than that. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 12:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Where have I suggested someone have a title they did not have in Canon? Breha was Queen! This is how you reference a Queen in real life! It is a unalateral decision to list the maiden name as well as the married name, but it is incorrect formatting for a royal family or noble. Wow Drachenfyre 12:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You really don't seem to be getting it. Breha is called a queen in canon. She is not called Breha of Alderaan in canon, to my knowledge (if she is, fair enough, but it doesn't really change all that much). There's no rule been established in canon as to how nobles should be titled/referred to as in Star Wars. Therefore, calling all queens, kings or anyone "Whoever of Wherever" is fanon because it is not supported by canon. Real life rules of this sort are not canon. Also, even if canon stated that people were to be addressed as such, the article titles would stay as is per the article naming policy. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Neither is Breha called Mrs. Organa or Mrs. Antilles Organa or Breha Antilles Organa. While we are at it, why not name her Mrs Bail Organa? Even by your reasoning, her name is incorrect. As she has only been known as Breha of House Antilles (which could be correct too in some instances in listing monarchies)Drachenfyre 12:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Breha was Queen! This is how you reference a Queen in real life! Just to make sure we are perfectly clear on this. Star Wars is not real life. - JMASHey, it's me! 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
For instance, can you provide a souce that states Breha's name should be Breha Antilles Organa? Where ever has her name appeared exactly as that? It has not. It was based on the incorrect notion that that was the correct format of her name, even though she is a monarch.Drachenfyre 12:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Warning: Your reference to the "good ol' boy network" skirts our conventions regarding disruption, and the idle threat that you'll tell on us soon thereafter tempts me to dole out a block. Calm down. Graestan(Talk) 12:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough: So the community here has spoken here and I defer to the community and will not pursue the matter further. I regret that more critical thinking and debate was not used by contributors. I disagree with the result. Perhaps the issue may be reviewed down the road. Perhaps.
I believe that there is generally a misunderstanding of titles, of how and when to apply them. I fundamentally feel that as Lucas drew on traditional Western European titles and political structures that- by extension- it is reasonable to apply universally accepted norms when referring to them, except when clear and precise Canon already exists.
I apologies, Graestan and community, for insinuating a 'Good Ole Boy' network, but the absence of any critical debate seems to prove the point ("I can assure you it would be pointless"-JMAS, “I love a good bandwagon- Lord Hydronium”).
While it would be dishonest if I did not say that I would not pass on my experience and observations here, I hope that you would let me continue to edit appropriately. I had come here excited to contribute.
Of course you may continue editing appropriately; we're not going to ban you over a good-faith attempt to make the site a better place, even if it was ultimately disagreed with. However, I do think you're misinterpreting some of what's going on here as proof of a "Good Ol' Boy" network. The first quote by JMAS, isn't about him calling on a network to crush your idea; it's merely that JMAS has been here long enough to know how we operate, and that we've had several long-fought battles over naming conventions resulting in our current system, and that adjusting that system to include what is essentially original research was not at all likely to succeed here. As for Hydro's comment, I believe it was made basically in the same vein as my quoting of the Dukes of Hazzard song, playfully mocking the notion of bandwagoning rather than confessing to it. The simple fact is, the first few voters covered the primary arguments - Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia, we stick to canon, we can't assume that Lucas' nobility creations were based on those of real life, and using the suggested change inevitably involves more original research (or outright fanon) than the current system does. Those are enough that later voters really don't have to add anything to the discussion, so their lack of explicit reasoning shouldn't be taken as merely jumping on a bandwagon. The mere existence of things like Moffs and elected queens show that extrapolating from Earth's systems of nobility and office isn't a safe bet. Anyway, again, I hope this CT hasn't discouraged you from continuing to edit. jSarek 09:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"we can't assume that Lucas' nobility creations were based on those of real life". Of corse you can. Where else did he get the title "princess of Alderaan" and ect. There are source books which demonstrate that Lucas drew upon European traditions, specifcially Arthurian legand, amongst other sources. Additionally, Canon authors drew upon simular backgrounds.Drachenfyre 10:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Elective kings existed in medieval Poland (from various Polish noble houses) for close to a hundred and fifty years. And the President of the United Arab Emirates (United Arab Principalities) is essentially an elected High King over the other princes. The Papacy is an elected monarchial institution. As I said, Lucas was not original and drew upon existing Western European precedent. Moffs are "regional governors" which mimic governors in the British Empire and other colonial powersDrachenfyre 10:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It goes without saying that even in courtries that have no connection to the Western European tradition.... when they are addressed in the English speaking world or described in encyclopedia articals, simular formates are used. Even though in their domestic tradition the formatting may be different.Drachenfyre 10:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"So the community here has spoken here and I defer to the community and will not pursue the matter further." You've been given reasons why this has been opposed by virtually every active major contributor and admin at the site. You don't agree with these reasons; fair enough. But debating them over and over won't get anyone anywhere, especially since your argument is essentially the same each time, but with new examples. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 12:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If this CT's vote is still so far gone by 0:00 UTC tomorrow (in approximately 12 hours), I intend to close it as warranted by policy. Also, I came to notice this, am not in the least amused, and would like to call the attention to the rest of the Wookieepedia community to it. Graestan(Talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't notice the problem. I'm not saying there isn't one (nor am I saying there is), but I don't really understand why that's inappropriate. If you would be so kind to explain, Graestan? // ~mikah~ 18:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
...Are you implying that he's not allowed to express himself on his Wikipedia page? StarNeptuneTalk to me! 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
He's implying that something posted like that on Wikipedia is a pretty solid indication of what one may very well engage in on Wookieepedia - namely, antagonistic behavior, which, for a self-proclaimed departed user who is making a bad habit of returning only to make edits of that very nature, is something that should likewise be avoided. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's very petty and a rather pathetic bit of whining on his part. But there's no personal attack against any single individual from Wookieepedia, so I say unless/until that happens, let him keep whinging all he wants. - JMASHey, it's me! 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)