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 - Sikon 09:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

VoteEdit

Remove "Star Wars" from media titlesEdit

1. Yes please. — SavageBob 18:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Adamwankenobi^{Talk to me! My home.} 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
3. KEJ 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Ozzel 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Remove Finlayson 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
6. "Star Wars" should only appear in titles when it helps resolve ambiguity (Star Wars:Ewoks, Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, maybe Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords), where it's obviously incomplete without it (Encyclopedia or Episode II: Attack of the Clones wouldn't look good.) Putting it in front of everything only makes us type more words in the service of pedantry. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Per Silly Dan. RMF 00:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
8. While I like being thorough and have no problem with pedantry, I'm totally opposed to an operation that will require straightening out categories and leave us with hundred of redirected links. Darth Culator 00:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
9. I agree with Silly Dan.RC-1262 22:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Per Silly Dan and Culator.---Vladius Magnum^{(Clan Magnum)}20px 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Bub^Talk 00:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Remove. There's no reason to have, per my example below, Star Wars: The New Jedi Order: Dark Tide II: Ruin when Dark Tide II: Ruin will suffice. Additionally, this is the convention used by our source material - the bibliographies of SW reference books don't include Star Wars or series name in title, either. jSarek 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Per Silly Dan and jSarek.--Valin Kenobi 08:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not removeEdit

1. Sikon [Talk] 06:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Kwenn 08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
3. As argued by several users below, the standards for which articles should have "Star Wars" removed and which shouldn't is unclear. Even if it were clear, there is the completeness issue. - Breathesgelatin 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
4. MandalorianWarrior_talk 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Darth Kevinmhk 13:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Whether or not this is Star Wars Wikipedia, if "Star Wars" is in the title of a book or something, you don't just remove it. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
7. AdmiralKadann 15:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
8. --Xwing328^(Talk) 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) See my previous comments below.
9. Keep, as well as adding in anything else that appears in the title of the book even if it does result in rediculously long page titles. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Adamwankenobi^{Talk to me! My home.} 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Titles are titles. It's not our place to adjust them. --SparqMan 00:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Per Admiral J. Nebulax and SparqMan. I am also in support of X-Wing328's proposal below. —Mirlen 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Per X-Wing328's proposal below.Snoop 19:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Titles should be accurate. — beeurd ^talk 01:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Chack Jadson 00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Putting Star Wars there looks redundant, but if it's the full title of the book/comic/game, then it must be inserted. Besides, something must distinguish an in-universe from out-of-universe. Consider Star Wars: Droids and droids. Yeah, we can use italics for that, but still... - TopAce 00:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Star Wars should be in any article's title where it belongs. - Patricksheridan 7:37pm, January 5, 2007 (EST)
18. Proper titles are proper titles. Period. Maclimes Zero ^(talk) 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Imp 09:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Enochf 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
21. JMAS 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Havac 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
23. like it or not, the star wars should be included. For example, It would be just Bounty Hunter instead of Star Wars:Bounty Hunter. It Just wouldnt look right without Star Wars in front of it Mandofett^{Wrist Holoprojector} 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Would creat numerous more disambig pages. Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 12:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
25. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! - User:Patricknoddy/sig 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Wait, are you voting for Star Wars: Darth Bane: Path of Destruction: A Novel of the Old Republic and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords or against Insider 87, Adventure Journal 5, and Incredible Cross-Sections? Or some third option? This is why I wanted this started over again. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    No, we're voting for wether to remove the Star Wars prefix from article names. So Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic would become Knights of the Old Republic. Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I have noticed that many pages for novels, comics, video games, etc. have "Star Wars" in the title, which, given the nature of this wiki, seems to me to be unnecessary; Nearly every piece of media discussed on this wiki includes "Star Wars" in the title. It many times clutters up the title area and seems unnecessary. I suggest an addition to the Manual of Style in which media titles shouldn't include "Star Wars" in the page title unless "Star Wars" is an essential part of the title (ex. Star Wars: Incredible Cross Sections). Adamwankenobi 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Although you have a point, the correct name for numerous media titles has "Star Wars" in the title. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it becomes messy when you have titles like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. Since this is a Star Wars wiki, people should assume that the titles discussed are from Star Wars. Adamwankenobi 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. I mean, we don't have "Star Wars" in front of the titles of most books and comics. Kuralyov 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Except for the Visual Dictionaries, Incredible Cross-Sections, Essential and New Essential Guides, Inside the Worlds of..., and others. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I mentioned that above. My proposal is that "Star Wars" be removed from all titles, except those which contain "Star Wars" as an essential part of its title (Star Wars: Complete Locations), or in order to distinguish itself from others (Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections from Incredible Cross Sections). Adamwankenobi 01:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Negative. If it's a proper title, it should not be removed. - Sikon [Talk] 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Though giving the full title would be acceptable on Wikipedia, it isn't practical on this wiki, IMHO. Adamwankenobi 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I agree with Adam. To give one ludicrous example, there's a book called Star Wars: Return of the Jedi: The Adventures of Teebo: A Tale of Magic and Suspense. That's what's on the cover. I created the page and placed it at The Adventures of Teebo: A Tale of Magic and Suspense; the ROTJ and SW refs are pure marketing and have little to no bearing on the book itself. — SavageBob 02:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
                • It is incompatible with the "provide as much information as possible" ideology. Besides, full titles look more professional. - Sikon [Talk] 02:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • So should Dark Tide II: Ruin be at Star Wars: The New Jedi Order: Dark Tide II: Ruin? This seems to actually hinder the informativeness of the article title, by swamping it with unhelpful detail that keeps one from effortlessly seeing exactly what the article is about. jSarek 00:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• If you think this is such a good idea, are you going to move all the articles that follow this? In addition, regardless of what wiki this is, Star Wars is still part of the title. You wouldn't remove Star Wars from the title of the movies would you? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And besides, how can you differentiate between media with Star Wars as an essential part of the title, and media where it can be removed? For example, the Visual Dictionaries have the "Star Wars" logo above the actual title—just as all novels and comics do. Where's the difference? - Kwenn 08:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just like how we only keep canonical facts, the titles should be kept as the real and full title too. What would a Star Wars Wikia look like without the term "Star Wars" when refering to the products? However, I agree we can exclude extreme cases. Darth Kevinmhk 13:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then, should X-wing: Rogue Squadron be moved to Star Wars: X-wing: Rogue Squadron? "Star Wars" is right there on the cover, after all. However, "Star Wars" isn't actually part of the book's title: it's there to make sure people who see it in a book store know right away that it's a Star Wars book. How is that any different from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords? I'm not voting now because of the uncertainty about which articles should have "Star Wars" removed from their titles. Obviously it has to stay on the article titles for the movies themselves, but beyond that it would be less clear. Red XIV 08:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Personally, I think that IU books and stories should not have "Star Wars", but movies, games, reference books, and other OOU things should have "Star Wars" in the title. --Xwing328^(Talk) 04:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Another thought. Take Star Wars: Force Commander for example. If you remove "Star Wars", you are left with Force Commander. Without the "Star Wars" phrase to show the article relates to some form of published media, Force Commander could easily be confused as some in-universe article...possibly somebody's title or name. --Xwing328^(Talk) 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
            • You make a good point. And, in fact, "Force Commander" was Mitth'raw'nuruodo's rank in the Chiss Expansionary Defense Force. Red XIV 05:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Perhaps we should just take it on a case-by-case basis. I don't find Star Wars: Force Commander or Star Wars: Clone Wars to be objectionable. I do take issue with Star Wars: Return of the Jedi: The Adventures of Teebo: A Tale of Magic and Suspense. — SavageBob 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So here's my question. Should we move things like Labyrinth of Evil to Star Wars: Labyrinth of Evil? There needs to be a standard for article names. Adamwankenobi^{Talk to me! My home.} 04:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should. I mean, most new books have a massive "Star Wars" logo that fills up a quarter of the front cover, yet it's absent from the titles of many articles - such as the Essential Guides, the Visual Dictionaries etc. Why has this been left off? They even keep the full title on the inside pages - Kwenn 16:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Star Wars from the article title only. If Star Wars is in the title keep it in the body of the article. -Finlayson 17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But the title is supposed to represent the subject's full name. That's why we have Variable Geometry Self-Propelled Battle Droid, Mark I instead of "Vulture droid starfighter" and Roche Hive Mechanical Apparatus Design and Construction Activity for Those Who Need the Hive's Machines instead of "Roche". And yes, those names are long, but they're also accurate. So it's not as if we're adverse to long names in article headers - Kwenn 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • But what is the full name? Amazon, for example, has it listed as just "Labyrinth of Evil". For things like Complete Locations, on the other hand, it adds "Star Wars". The question is, for a given product, is "Star Wars" part of the title, or is it branding it with the name of the franchise? - Lord Hydronium 18:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Apparently Adamwankenobi decided to move several books (i.e. The Truce at Bakura to Star Wars: The Truce at Bakura). I don't think books should be moved to include Star Wars in the article title, especially when this is still an on-going debate. --Xwing328^(Talk) 23:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Now that you mention it, I'm going to abuse my admin powers and move them back. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• And another thing: in addition to moving every single novel and RPG supplement, not to mention most of the video games and comic books, we'd have to make sure they were properly sorted into the right category. What would be the benefit of all this work? Very little, IMHO. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So what do we do? We either remove "Star Wars" from all titles or add "Star Wars" to all titles. We need to figure this out. Adamwankenobi^{Talk to me! My home.} 00:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why must it be all one or the other? Some have "Star Wars" in the title, some don't. Labyrinth of Evil, for example, is not titled "Star Wars: Labryinth of Evil". "Star Wars", in that case, is branding. Star Wars: Complete Locations, on the other hand, does have Star Wars in its title. - Lord Hydronium 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A lot of this quibbling comes from a belief that we must have one very simple rule which has absolutely no exceptions. What's wrong with a more nuanced policy like the one we agreed on for character names? —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Why don't we start drafting a "nuanced" ;) policy, then revise it, vote on it, and get this over with?
          • Proposal
            1. Movies, TV shows, games, non-printed material, reference books, and non-fictional OOU media should have "Star Wars" in the title.
            2. Fictional IU novels, stories, comics, and other printed media should not have "Star Wars" in the title.
          • Comments? --Xwing328^(Talk) 05:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
            • RPG supplements shouldn't have Star Wars in front of them either, except in the cases of the magazines Star Wars Adventure Journal and Star Wars Gamer, and in the names of the RPGs themselves. —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't know too much concerning SW RPGs, but I do like X-Wing's proposal. —Mirlen 19:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I was going to agree... But I don't like the idea of having two separate rules for the same thing. — beeurd ^talk 01:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I like Xwing328's 2 prong proposal above. -Fnlayson 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Me too. It seems intuitive, and best of all, it seems (to me anyway) to be the way it's being done already, which means less work. Sionay 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Close?Edit

It seems to me that, though the vote counting doesn't reflect it, this can be closed as "no consensus." I'm not sure that the voters for "do not remove" are all voting on the same thing. Does anyone else agree? —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, probably time to just close it and start over. -- Ozzel 03:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The voters seem to know what they're talking about, in my opinion...some even list their reasons for voting the way they do. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It just seems to me, based on the comments, that many of the voters have different ideas for what constitutes exceptions to the rule (not all those voting for do not remove think there should be no exceptions, and we should have titles like Star Wars: Darth Bane: Path of Destruction: A Novel of the Old Republic as standard.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I beleive people know what they mean. I, for one does. If this is closed, it should be closed with a consensus saying that the Star Wars prefix remains. Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 09:11, 2 March 2007 (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.