Forum:CT:Article Names: Real vs. Adopted

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Article Names: Real vs. Adopted


This page is an archive of the discussion about Article Names: Real vs. Adopted.

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.

The result of the debate was to name articles based on the character's final or most widely known name, rather than the character's birth name. --Azizlight 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lengthy debate going on at Qymaen jai Sheelal over whether the article should really be there instead of at "Grievous". Some say it's more professional and encyclopedic to use birth names (and that redirects prevent any subsequent confusion), while others say the same about whatever name the individual used last, and/or was more widely known as, citing Mark Twain on Wikipedia as one such example. As the result of this debate could set precedent for the moving of many other articles, such as Padme Amidala, Mara Jade Skywalker, Leia Organa Solo, and so on, I felt it was worth discussion amongst a larger audience. CooperTFN 18:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Naming

Birth Names

  1. Tam 18:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kwenn 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Imp 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Final/Most Well-Known Names

  1. CooperTFN 18:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. StarNeptune 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Cull Tremayne 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Tinwe 20:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. RMF 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. --MarcK [talk] 23:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Divinity 12:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Azizlight 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sikon [Talk] 16:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. jSarek 06:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. WhiteBoy 14:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Riffsyphon1024 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC) The nail in the coffin I hope.
  14. TopAce 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Ozzel 20:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Adamwankenobi 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I was in favor of birth names at first, but when holding the Grievous precedent up against articles like Mara and Padme, I think the last-used name really would be better. CooperTFN 18:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't think it makes a desperate difference (especially not when we can throw redirects around and stuff) but I'd say I favour birth names. Tam 18:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Grievous was an overkill. I think that we should stick with two policies:
  1. for Sith Lords, real names should always be preferred to Darth aliases;
  2. titles (Emperor, General etc.) are always omitted

but other cases should be considered individually. Indeed, leaving Grievous with that unintelligible birth name would require changing Padme Amidala to Padme Naberrie, Leia Organa Solo to Leia Skywalker and so on; however, Thrawn is a more ambiguous issue, and for other articles the judgment can be different. - Sikon [Talk] 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    • It may not make a difference, but it does make it consistent with the naming conventions of all the other articles. Cuurently, we have some character articles at their birth names (i.e. Qymaen jai Sheelal, Aaylas'ecura, etc) and some using their last known name (i.e. Padme, Leia, Mara, Lumiya, Hal Horn, etc). People are more likely to search for the more well known name than a possibly obscure birth one. StarNeptune 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The searches are nicely taken care of by redirects...but people are more likely to link to the best known name. I suggest the best-known version of the last proper name used should be the article location — i.e., Thrawn, Greivous, Mara Jade Skywalker, Leia Organa Solo (the latter two seem to use their maiden name as part of a compund last name.) Two problems I can see with this are Darths who operated under their real name and their Sith name at the same time (like Dooku/Darth Tyrannus) and characters whose change of name in their latest appearance constitutes a spoiler (whose articles wouldn't be moved until a few months after publication). —Silly Dan (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm actually fine with Thrawn staying at Mitth'raw'nuruodo and same with the Twi'leks as that's probably how a "real life" encyclopedia in the SW universe would have them. However, I'm not going to lose sleep if they're titled as their most well known name either. With changed names due to marriage or the choice of that person, I say stay with the most recent. It's more encyclopedic that way. I agree with Dan that the Sith Lord situation should probably be a different case, since in a "real life" universe, some could misunderstand the Darth thing as an alias rather than a real name change. However, I'd probably advocate keeping all the Darth's at their Darth titles, since (as it seems to me) their old name becomes an alias when they become a Sith Lord. (Yes, that would mean switching Palpatine to Darth Sidious and Dooku to Darth Tyrannus) Cull Tremayne 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • As for Grievous, see the bottom of Talk:Grievous#Title (again) for a suggestion. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
            • And Cull Tremayne, for Palpatine and Dooku, those are either their last or best-known names, not Darth Sidious and Darth Tyranus. Plus, Palpatine and Dooku are both their birth names. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I think articles like Thrawn and Aayla should stay where they are, because there it's not a birth name vs. adopted name issue. Aayla Secura and Thrawn are as much their names as Aaylas'ecura and Muiith'raw'nuruodo are; the latter two are simply their full names. It'd be like putting Chewbacca at Chewie. CooperTFN 20:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I think we should try and set a Wiki-wide standard for things like this, which we can't do if we use the last known names. As mentioned above, it would be a case-by-case analysis of the article, which would undoubtedly spawn more pointless debates over naming convention—is it their "official" name, is it a nickname, what about names taken in marriage etc etc. Characters only have one birth name, so there can be no dispute over that if implemented. And yes, redirects take care of people searching for the more famous name. And remember, all we have to do is monitor the double redirects page for any links not leading directly to the so-called "obscure name"—though I don't see how saying something is too obscure qualifies as an argument on a Wiki that strives to create articles on every single element of the Saga, no matter how obscure or insignificent - Kwenn 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Jack, I don't think I understand. Tyrannus and Sidious were obviously their last names that they assumed. I realize that Palpatine and Dooku are obviously birth names. I admit that they're best known as Dooku and Palpatine, but so is Thrawn. As I said, it seems to me that when they become Sith Lords they change their names and use their former names as an alias when working in the public eye. Cull Tremayne 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't think it's a matter of being obscure, it's a matter of being encyclopedic which I thought was something this wiki strove to be like. If we go by a case by case basis I think we can probably figure out what it is that the character would call his or herself (disregarding the Sith Lord situation of course). Cull Tremayne 20:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Cull, Palpatine used didn't use Sidious during his time as Emperor, and Dooku was still best known as "Dooku", not "Tyranus". Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • Right, I understand that, like I said they use their old names when in the public eye. We should probably have a different policy when dealing with Sith Lords. Cull Tremayne 22:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd be in favor of the birth name thing if it weren't for married names, because as much as I'd like consistency (and I think Qymaen jai Sheelal makes for a great title, and I like the idea of a Star Wars encyclopedia having obscure things like that in a prominent position), I just can't see Leia under Leia Amidala Skywalker. I'd say it's a matter of whether the character would ever go by their original name. So Sidious does still go by Palpatine and Thrawn is still Mitth'raw'nuruodo, while Grievous gives up the name Qymaen. The Sith business is tricky, though; are the Darth names (and Lumiya) aliases, or genuine name changes? Is Lumiya just something Shira Brie goes by, or did Shira Brie become Lumiya in her own mind as well? Did Dessel become Darth Bane entirely, or is it a title that he took on? And so forth. And for that matter, what if a character has an equal amount of information under both names (Lumiya's article is almost half about her life as Shira, for example)? Or even if most of the info is on them under their previous name (as we may get with someone like Darth Nihilus)? I don't really know, but these are things to consider. - Lord Hydronium 22:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a policy on this. To quote:

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
―Wikipedia page

I couldn't have said it better. RMF 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, Mark Twain is not the only example of this on WP:
    • Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)
    • Tony Blair (not Anthony Charles Lynton Blair)
    • Julius Caesar (not Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus)
    • Dog (not Canis lupus familiaris), etc --RMF 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I just add that putting two names as the article name (like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, for example) is something we're better off avoiding? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Absolutely—completely unprofessional and terrible-looking. Either of the above options is better than that. By the way, there is no mention of naming conventions in the Manual of Style. Something should probably be added following whatever we decide here. RMF 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • We have Wookieepedia:Naming conventions, but it's a badly wookified Wikipedia fork. By the way, renaming the Aayla Secura article was an overkill too. However, I think both Thrawn and Mitth'raw'nuruodo are fine titles. - Sikon [Talk] 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, what has to happen with the voting before a policy can be decided on this? I don't think we'll ever all agree. CooperTFN 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Has consensus been reached yet? Since discussion has stagnated, and since it's 12-4 on using Final/Most Well-Known names, can we move the Qymaen article to the Grievous name?
  • We have applied the "final" rule to everything else, so I don't see why the article name shouldn't be their "final" name. Adamwankenobi 20:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Subdiscussion: Darths

Should characters using the "Darth" title be under:

  1. Darth Whatever (alphabetized in the categories as Whatever, Darth)
  2. Whatever
  3. Their non-Sith name, if known

I would argue for the second option, with two exceptions: Dooku and Palpatine, since their pre-Sith names are known, and were used openly and prominently by those characters (indicating they didn't change their names so much as adopt a Sith alias.) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What I think for Darths:
Palpatine not Darth Sidious
Dooku not Darth Tyranus
Darth Maul not Khameir Sarin/Unnamed Zabrak :)
Darth Malak not Malak
Darth Zannah not Rain/Zannah
Kreia not Darth Traya
Darth Bane not Dessel
Revan not Darth Revan QuentinGeorge 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really care either way, but I honestly think all of them should be at the Darth name. It's more consistent; not only among the Darths themselves, but with the idea of putting all articles at their final name. Since Anakin turned back, I'd say he's the only one who shouldn't be at Darth. CooperTFN 05:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Why should Revan and Malak be treated differently? Because Revan returned to the light? - Sikon [Talk] 05:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, right. Revan shouldn't be at "Darth" then, either. CooperTFN 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I still say that at least Palpatine and Dooku should be at those names, since they publically used them even when their Sith alliegance was known (see ROTJ for Palpy and ROTS for Dooku) QuentinGeorge 05:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I almost agree with you in the case of Dooku, but I absolutely believe that Sidious should be at Sidious. Regardless of what name he's using publically, he is, and always was, Darth Sidious. Like he said in RotS: "the mask becomes the man". CooperTFN
            • My thought is that we should keep it as the "Galactic Encyclopedia" would have it ie their most well known name. So the same as Quentin's but with Darth Revan for Revan, only his closest friends seem to call him Revan. The Galactic community seems to know him as Darth Revan after his betrayal. Cull Tremayne 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Ah, but he's Revan after he rejoins the light side (in the canonical ending, anyway.) —Silly Dan (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Yeah, but my thought is that he didn't hang around long enough for the galaxy to really know him as their savior. But the holonet would probably recognize him as such soo...you're probably right. Cull Tremayne 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Subdiscussion: "Foreign" names

One could make the arguement that Twi'lek names like Aaylas'ecura or Chiss names like Mitth'raw'nuruodo are the names of the characters in their native language, while their Galactic Basic Standard/English names are Aayla Secura and Thrawn. In that case, would it make sense to use the latter name as the article title? —Silly Dan (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You could make that argument for Aayla, because that's exactly the case. "Thrawn", however, is not Mitth'raw'nuruodo in Basic; it's essentially a nickname, used in and out of Chiss society. Like I said earlier, it'd be tantamount to putting Chewbacca at Chewie. CooperTFN 04:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Cooper on Thrawn - it's clear he never abandons his name, nor changes it - since the Chiss still know him as that. Thrawn is merely a shortened version to ease pronounciation for us rube Core-Worlders. ;) QuentinGeorge 05:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Or even among familiar Chiss, as evidenced in OBF. CooperTFN 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We have applied the "final" rule to everything else, so I don't see why the article name shouldn't be their "final" name. Adamwankenobi 20:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to end this?

Please, make it stop. I don't care what the final outcome is, but let's put an end to this. --Azizlight 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The vote's 13-4 for registered users, and 6-1 for admins? Hm. Maybe so. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. I think we've reached consensus here. QuentinGeorge 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd disagree, but I don't wanna get a lot of hate mail and death threats.TIEPilot051999 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, we're never going to get 100% agreement on this (if for no other reason than the large number and diversity of registered active editors we have now.) Then again, I disagreed about the "past tense" perscription in the Manual of Style, but I've been happily writing articles in past tense for months now. I guess we just need the admins to step in and declare the vote over (or set a timeline for the end of the vote.)—Silly Dan (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Just end it. I've changed my mind, as shown here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I had mixed feelings before, but I just voted anyway. I'm just ready to have a definitive answer. Let's end this thing! -- Ozzel 20:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok but does this apply also to the Thrawn case? --UVnet 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "Thrawn". Is. A. Nickname. CooperTFN 02:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)