Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Chiss names
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- In matters relating directly with the Chiss, should we use their core names, or real names? For instance: should we call Thrawn by Mitth'raw'nuruodo in reference to his time before he leaves Chiss space, and call him Thrawn afterwards? Also, should we refer to him as Mitth'raw'nuruodo on Chiss-related articles? (With the exception of Empire of the Hand, etc.)--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet) 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- We've pretty definitively settled that articles on Chiss should be titled according to their full names, even in Thrawn's case. However, using a core name in text for brevity's sake is probably OK in any article (much as how we don't repeat the full names of Human characters every time we mention them.) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about titles. I was saying that since core names weren't used amongst the Chiss very often, so perhaps for instance in Syndic (where the question first occured to me) the whole article is Chiss related, and using core names seems to be out of place.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well in that article, I'm seeing both versions side by side. Is that necessary though? -- Riffsyphon1024 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why I wanted to know which style should be used, since in Sydic it seemed more proper to use their Chiss names, but seeing as how their core names were there too, I'd put them in parentheses, since not everyone would know a Chiss by his or her real name. But then that didn't seem like a good idea, which is why I'm wondering how it should be done.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet) 11:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that, in cases where the core name is canonically given, we should use that pretty much exclusively in the body of articles, including Syndic. It's a readability thing. Gonk (Gonk!) 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- So, we should use core names exclusively?--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet) 15:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that, in cases where the core name is canonically given, we should use that pretty much exclusively in the body of articles, including Syndic. It's a readability thing. Gonk (Gonk!) 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why I wanted to know which style should be used, since in Sydic it seemed more proper to use their Chiss names, but seeing as how their core names were there too, I'd put them in parentheses, since not everyone would know a Chiss by his or her real name. But then that didn't seem like a good idea, which is why I'm wondering how it should be done.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet) 11:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well in that article, I'm seeing both versions side by side. Is that necessary though? -- Riffsyphon1024 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about titles. I was saying that since core names weren't used amongst the Chiss very often, so perhaps for instance in Syndic (where the question first occured to me) the whole article is Chiss related, and using core names seems to be out of place.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- We've pretty definitively settled that articles on Chiss should be titled according to their full names, even in Thrawn's case. However, using a core name in text for brevity's sake is probably OK in any article (much as how we don't repeat the full names of Human characters every time we mention them.) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)