Contents 1 Common names 2 Link to CT Archive thread resulting in new policy 3 What if later sources spell it differently? 4 Titles of Star Wars works 5 "Unidentified"

Common namesEdit

The naming conventions state:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Would it be proper, then, to move Jabba Desilijic Tiure to Jabba the Hutt and Mitth'raw'nuruodo to Grand Admiral Thrawn? I'd say emphatically YES, but I don't want to ruffle any feathers; I'm new here. — SavageBob 19:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that topic is actually the subject of intense debate (see here, most notably). This issue is not always clear-cut, however—I'm not the most knowledgeable about the specifics, but I gather that there are other factors at work in alien names, especially Thrawn (and he is somewhat of a touchy issue around here). As my vote shows, I agree the we should have the policy of most common name, but I admit that there may be mitigating circumstances in some instances (by the way, this page was essentially copied from wikipedia, as you no doubt can tell: it hasn't been Wookieefied—converted for use here—yet, meaning some of the content, such as this example, does not reflect community consensus). Still, thank you for asking; many of our new users would simply go ahead with controversial page moves without discussing first. RMF 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like most voters chose "common name" over "birth name" — not a true consensus, perhaps, but a majority. But I just want to be extra sure: Will I be branded a traitor and chased away with picthforks and torches if I (for example) move Jabba Desilijic Tiure to Jabba the Hutt? — SavageBob 20:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • In those specific cases, please leave them where they are. "Grand Admiral Thrawn" isn't Thrawn's name any more than "President Bush" is Bush's name. Ditto with Jabba. - Lord Hydronium 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But that was the point of the vote, wasn't it? Jabba's real name isn't the issue, it's the fact that people voted to name articles by common names. "Jabba Desilijic Tiure" isn't his common name; it's one that only maybe 1% of visitors to the site will search for. If not Jabba the Hutt, than certainly Jabba should be okay. And if titles aren't permitted, Thrawn should be at Thrawn. (I'm not trying to pick a fight, mind you; just trying to carry out what seems to be a consensus). — SavageBob 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Not to carry on this discussion in two places simultaneously, but the vote was between final and birth names. "Well-known" wasn't in the title, wasn't the subject under discussion, and shouldn't have even been an issue. In cases like Thrawn, "well-known name" and "final name" (both of which were listed in the winning vote, I should mention) are distinctly not the same. As such, I would give priority to the one the vote was actually for and the one under discussion. As to Jabba Desilijic Tiure being under Jabba (or the Thrawn issue, for that matter), why would you list someone under an incomplete name? Garm Bel Iblis has his full name spelled out rarely, for example; would you title that Bel Iblis because that's what he's most often called? - Lord Hydronium 21:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I take your point on the Bel Iblis/Garm Bel Iblis thing. In this case, the, I would support Jabba the Hutt, as that's his best-known name (even if it is a nickname or alias). I'm just supporting a well-worn Wikipedia convention to use common names. I realize that this isn't Wikipedia, but there's no reason to reinvent the wheel all the time. Consensus on Jabba is also overwhelmingly against the "correct" name: Jabba the Hutt: 370 links; Jabba: 116 links; Jabba Desilijic Tiure: 97 links. It's like we're being obscure on purpose. — SavageBob 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with SavageBob, and I believe I mentioned WP's precedent in one of my comments on the consensus track page. That last consensus track was far too specialized, however, we were deciding on Grievous' naming alone. We should create a new consensus track, more generally-worded (i.e. birth name, death name, most well-known name, etc) to focus this discussion in one place. RMF 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
          • We're being accurate on purpose. Jabba's name is not "Jabba the Hutt". Besides the title issue, that's missing over half his name. "Jabba Desilijic Tiure" is just plain more accurate, and anyone looking for "Jabba" or "Jabba the Hutt" is going to be redirected there anyway. I don't see why we shouldn't strive for the most accurate title. - Lord Hydronium 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• To say about Thrawn, "Grand Admiral" should never be added since he was only Grand Admiral once. Thrawn was also a Commander. As for whether to use the core name or the Chiss name, I'm both ways, but leaning towards core, as it would be used more and less redirects would be needed. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I started a unified consensus track discussion about this topic here. Please voice your opinion. RMF 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to CT Archive thread resulting in new policy Edit

Forum:CT Archive/Naming policy resulted in this page being rewritten. —Silly Dan _(talk) 14:21, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

What if later sources spell it differently? Edit

Perhaps something should be added about what to do when later sources spell things differently? I'm thinking about a particular creature that was known as "the Grudakk" in its first appearance (The Adventures of Teebo: A Tale of Magic and Suspense) but which The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia calls "the Grundakk." I'm pretty sure the Encyclopedia screwed up, but we're left to decide which source to defer to. ~ SavageBob 14:39, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Titles of Star Wars works Edit

I think there should be a rule to use in titles (unless when it's specifically determined). Titles of books, movies, or games usually have a subtitle, like:

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Star Wars Dark Lord: Rise of Darth Vader

Normally, 'Star Wars' is separated from the rest of the title in italic, but since the Wiki writes the whole title in italic on articles, there is nothing separating the brand 'Star Wars' from the rest of the title. Sometimes, titles are found without any type of ponctuation, or use the colon twice (which is not very correct, gramatically). I suggest that we use the colon to separate the brand 'Star Wars' from the title, and use a dash to seperate the title from the subtitle. Using the examples above, it should stay like this:

Star Wars: Jedi Knight - Jedi Academy

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace

Star Wars: Dark Lord - Rise of Darth Vader

Or when there is no subtitle, just use the colon:

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

What do you think? Many companies use this style on their catalogue. Alexrd 16:56, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

• Discuss first, act then. In any case, changes to any policy must be voted on in the Consensus track. 1358 ^(Talk) 17:15, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • I did nothing wrong though, since there is no specific rule about this. Anyway, it's on the Consensus track. Alexrd 18:11, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

"Unidentified" Edit

Don't the new procedures decided at the mofference need added? Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 21:45, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

As those procedures deal with the name displayed in the infobox and not the actual article title, those would be better placed at Wookieepedia:Layout_Guide#Infobox. —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} Thursday, February 23, 2012, 21:49 UTC