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 Vote 1: Support; Vote 2: Support;Vote 3: Support; Vote 4: Support. Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 02:59, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
As a followup to the recent previous Naming policy CT, there are several more naming conventions that have since cropped up in discussions that I believe should also be codified. Please note that any redirects/redlinks represent article titles that will be created or moved with this policy. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:14, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
I propose a second sub-bullet to item 2 of this section in the Naming policy, which further explains how to title articles when multiple names are used in source for a single subject. I use Golm as the example because I recently moved it to Bothawui Prime, only to realize that I shouldn't have because "Golm" is used again following Atlas in The Last Jedi.
If a non-character subject is known by two or more names across multiple sources with no clear in-universe chronological naming precedence, use the name most commonly presented in sources (example: Golm instead of Bothawui Prime). Name proliferation may be trumped by a clear and/or consistent intention to rename a subject, in which case the name presented in the most recently published source takes precedence (example: TIE/sh VIP shuttle).
Ultimately, as with anything, many issues like this one will come down to a site-wide discussion/decision as to how we want to interpret the policy for individual cases such as this. I won't presume to make a subjective ruling on whether this particular article will or will not be moved. That's something for the courts to decide, so to speak. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:35, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, this section in the policy page is titled "Prefer singular nouns" and worded as a "generality," as if this were an option. This is a requirement, and it should be worded as such. I propose rewording this section as follows:
In the previous CT, we created a new "Disambiguation" section that outlines how to title disambiguating articles. One of the clauses we established was that species articles will take precedence over other subjects, such as a characters and starships. In writing this, I just kind of overlooked that similar rules will need to apply for other subjects as well, including planets, etc. So, branching off the existing policy statement regarding species, I now present an expanded and improved system:
1) Precedence shall be granted to articles on planets, species, characters, and starships in that order, pursuant to this section's clause regarding major subjects taking precedence overall. Examples:
If a given subject is explicitly identified as having inspired the name of another subject, the original namesake shall be granted precedence (example: Pernicar and Pernicar (planet)), although this exception may be waived if the inspired subject is a major topic (example: Endor and Endor (planet)).
2) Precedence shall be granted to subjects that can be considered original namesakes for other subjects with competing titles (example: Dagger and all other subjects named Dagger), although this exception may be waived if the namesake's title competes with a major subject (example: Tydirium and Tydirium (ore)).
I have a question. Say I want to create an article entitled "Tripod" which would be about the tripod support for heavy weapons. However, there is already an article entitled Tripod, which is about a sentient species. However, the name of that species is not really "Tripod" since that was just what Luke Skywalker called them. They refer to themselves as "The people". Anyway, my new "Tripod" article is a weapon/technology/item/attachment which is not included in your "order of precedence." Would I call my new article "Tripod (weapon attachment)" or would I move the current "Tripod" article to "Tripod (species)" and place my new article at simply "Tripod"?--Richterbelmont10(come in R2!) 04:37, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Our current Naming policy section on starships is insufficient. I propose an expanded system that covers more methods for how to disambiguate competing starship titles:
To disambiguate individual starships, add the ship class in parentheses to the vessel's name.
The parenthetical descriptor need only specify the abbreviated ship class (example: Relentless (Pellaeon-class)) unless the abbreviated class name applies to multiple ship classes, in which case the full ship class name shall be specified (example: Vanguard (Defender-class light corvette), because "Defender-class" may refer to several different ship classes).