Forum:CT:"Star Wars" in article titles

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:"Star Wars" in article titles

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 change (Established unwritten rules). Grunny (Talk) 09:23, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

So, as far as I can tell, there's no official decision on the inclusion of the brand "Star Wars" in the names of articles about specific works. For example, we have things like Star Wars: Empire but also things like The Essential Atlas. I made a draft addition to Wookieepedia:Naming Policy to try and make an actual system for this sort of thing, rather than the arbitrary names we have now.

Pros of using "Star Wars" in titles:

  1. More accurate, since nearly all works are marketed as something like Star Wars: The Title of the Book.
  2. Easily distinguishes between in-universe and real-world items, if the title also refers to something else, to avoid having to use parentheses, as in Millennium Falcon (novel), or Death Star (novel).
  3. Distinguishes between individual stories in a work and entire works.
  4. Distinguishes between fiction explicitly made for Star Wars and other works that merit articles.

Cons of using "Star Wars" in titles:

  1. Most users are already aware that the works on this site are Star Wars works, making it somewhat redundant.
  2. Longer article names.
  3. Makes it somewhat harder to distinguish between sources on Appearances and Sources lists.

—Milo Fett[Comlink] 19:19, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Update: As suggested by Mauser, I made a second draft proposal outlining the opposite of the plan above. The pros and cons would of course be reversed. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 19:39, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Support Proposal 1 (Star Wars in titles)

—Milo Fett[Comlink] 19:19, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Support Proposal 2 (No Star Wars in titles)

Per Cons 1, 2, and 3. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:49, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  1. Per the reason you've stated yourself. MauserComlink 19:55, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

No change (Established unwritten rules)

Per the reason you've stated yourself. MauserComlink 19:21, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
Per Cons 1, 2, and 3. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:23, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  1. I think this should be done case-by-case. Some articles should have Star Wars in front, and others shouldn't. Simple as that. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 19:52, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Jonny. JangFett (Talk) 20:08, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. Contrary to popular belief, we do operate under something of a system. As a general rule, novels and sourcebooks (Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, The Essential Guide to Droids, and The Dark Side Sourcebook, to randomly name some examples) do not get the "Star Wars" label, but we do apply them to comics (Star Wars: Empire) and video games (Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords) where appropriate. This is a more desirable option than the first two choices, which are basically asking us to either put them on everything or nothing. Some items do need the title and some do not. There is no hard-and-fast rule here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:21, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Tope. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:50, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  5. I can't quite support proposal 2, nor do I want to see us adding prefixes until we get titles like Star Wars: Return of the Jedi: The Adventures of Teebo: A Tale of Magic and Suspense everywhere. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:43, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support, since Star Wars works themselves don't consistently do either when referring to other works. See, for example, the bibliography for The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, which has Children of the Jedi and The Ewok Adventure, but Star Wars Galaxies and the Star Wars Episode I Insider's Guide. jSarek 08:22, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per jSarek. Grunny (Talk) 08:25, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per all above. CC7567 (talk) 08:32, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
  9. After reconsidering, per Tope and jSarek. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:34, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
  10. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:12, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
  11. We need give. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:41, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
  12. Looks like there's a canon source. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 15:02, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
  13. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:12, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
  14. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 09:22, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
  15. Hopping on the Tope and jSarek bandwagon. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:58, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
  16. Since my vote is obviously going to turn the tide. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 17:02, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and suggested changes to proposal

  • You really should make two proposals instead of one: always use Star Wars in titles and never use that. Then we could vote on that. MauserComlink 19:27, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  • So then if there actually is a system, shouldn't it be mentioned in WP:NP? —Milo Fett[Comlink] 22:08, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
    • If someone wants to write up a set of rules, we could discuss them. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:43, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
      • All right. What differentiates comics, books, and video games? I mean, it seems like every work except books (including novels, reference books, and some TPBs) uses it right now. Is there some kind of difference in the medium itself that doesn't lend itself to being called "Star Wars" as easily, despite being listed as such just as frequently in official material? Granted, some articles don't need every single applicable prefix (causing so-called colon cancer) but shouldn't those be the exception, rather than the arbitrary rule? —Milo Fett[Comlink] 01:10, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd rather get something like Fate of the Jedi: Abyss instead of the current Abyss (novel) before trying to push it all the way to Star Wars: Fate of the Jedi: Abyss (the latter of which is a bit much in my opinion). —Xwing328(Talk) 00:26, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
  • An added note: it seems Lucasfilm isn't even consistent with itself. While discussing this with Milo on this TOS thread, I found that The New Essential Guide to Alien Species had just "Dark Empire," while the original Star Wars Encyclopedia has "Star Wars: Dark Empire" (I don't have the new Encyc, and I don't think it has a bibliography anyway). Meanwhile, the video game "Dark Forces" doesn't have the "Star Wars" on it in the Encyclopedia, while one of its sequels, "Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy," does have it in the NEGAS. Take from that what you will. jSarek 15:24, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
    • So then the current system is something like this, correct?

Use "Star Wars" in article titles except where the article is about a book (including reference books, novels, and making-of books) that isn't a novelization of another work (for example: Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (novel) rather than Episode II: Attack of the Clones) or where the work officially doesn't have "Star Wars" in the title (for example: Dark Empire rather than Star Wars: Dark Empire).

—Milo Fett[Comlink] 17:10, November 3, 2009 (UTC)