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. 1358(Talk) 21:00, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
In the Naming Policy under Real-world people rule one says that we are to always list main author articles under the chosen, publishing name of the author, be it their real name or a pseudonym. However here and here say that we are not to create the pseudonym but the authors operating under the pseudonym. The official publishing name of the author who's writing the Untitled Han Solo novel is James S. A. Corey not the individual authors operating under the pseudonym. The rule as it stands seems to be interpreted differently by each individual that reads it.
That's why I suggest that the rule to be re-worded to avoid mis-identification of what is truly meant by it. It would help other users to not make the same mistake as I have by better understanding what is meant by the rule. If we are not to make the pseudonym page but the authors operating underneath it only it should be specifically stated in the rule, which at the moment it isn't.
I say that we should amend the rule to say always list main author articles under the authors real name or always list main author articles under the authors publishing name since as it reads now many think we shouldn't make the pseudonym, but the authors under it.
DarthRevan1173 (Long live Lord Revan) 06:12, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Now that we know what the wording change will be, I can't support this and I'll tell you why. Effectively, this isn't a vote to change the wording of the rule to correct a misinterpretation, it's a vote to change the rule. At no point did I or Fred say that there would not be a "James S. A. Corey" article. We both said that it should be a disambiguation page because the two authors are different people, and I clarified that below by pointing to Solo twins as an example for how it should done. The disambig should not be empty and that's the best option to cover what is likly a once-in-a-fandom event. It is better that this one duo be a special case of the rule than he it be two biogaphies piled on top of one another. That said, and I'll not dwell here, but I see it as a bit of bad faith to say "It would help other users to not make the same mistake as I have" in the same request that would make your view of the policy correct, let alone "many think we shouldn't make the pseudonym" when it was two people versus your one self. Both of whom said the same thing, and both of whom do not constitute "many" on their own. I'm sure you didn't mean any harm, but try qualifying a bit less when you write formally next time, Revan. Trying to soften your blows too much can also obfuscate your meaning. NaruHinaTalk 03:39, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
I think having articles on both the pseudonym (perhaps as a meatier-than usual disambig, per Naru's Solo twins example) and the real authors is warranted. jSarek (talk) 02:35, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
The Consensus Track is usually for final votes, Revan, not just "should we do this?" Could you provide the exact, clarifying wording change that you want to make? Furthermore, I'd like to point out that what I was saying we do with the Corey page is make it a disambig to the two authors who write under the name. A disambig does not have to just be a list, like 99% of them are. In cases like this, some background is OK. The Corey page should be like Solo twins. I probably should have said that flatly earlier, but I thought we were on the same page when we weren't at first, followed by when you "thought better of" creating articles on the two men individually. NaruHinaTalk 08:01, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
I see what you did, but please see here for a good example of what I mean by "provide the exact, clarifying wording change." NaruHinaTalk 22:55, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
There we go. Well done. :D NaruHinaTalk 03:19, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Is this CT still operational? Winterz (talk) 22:28, February 28, 2013 (UTC)