Forum:CT:Author's real names

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Author's real names

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 always list main author articles under the chosen, publishing name of the author, be it their real name or a pseudonym. Graestan(Talk) 19:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonyms for authors that have also written under their real names are easily handled; redirect the pseudonym (e.g. J.D. Montgomery) to the real person (Daniel Keys Moran). But I don't think we've ever decided what to do for authors who only write Star Wars under a pseudonym. This came up over Jude Watson, who the Scholastic website confirms is a pen name for Judy Blundell. I can see two arguments for this: one is that we should go with the real name because that's the thing we do, and the other is that we should go with the name that the eleventy billion books she's written are credited under because that's the name she uses for Star Wars and that's the name all her works are listed by (notice even that page starts talking about her as "Watson" when it discusses Star Wars). Really, I see arguments for both, so discuss and let's see what the community is more inclined towards. - Lord Hydronium 07:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe it would be best, for our specific concentration, to refer to them by their Star Wars pen names, while making mention of their real name in the article. In the realm of SW literature, that's the name they go as, and I think we should follow suit in respect. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • This feels very much like the beginnings of an Anakin/Vader or Palpy/Sidious debate, but I digress. :P I agree with Toprawa, and redirects can easily handle any discrepancies. Besides, before this issue arose, I had no idea Watson was a pen name, so I'd not be searching for the real name anyway. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Per Jorrel. I didn't know about the Jude Watson thing either. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'd go with the pen name, but the real name should obviously be present on her article. This raises another question, though; what do we do if/when an author writes under two different pen names but never their actual name? E.g. Jude Watson and Alex Wheeler (though I don't think that's been properly confirmed yet so it might not be an issue for a while). -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with T&R, Jorrel, et al. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 14:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Yep, per Toprawa. To answer Acky's question, I suppose just whichever name they use more often. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Think about it like this. Wookieepedia is a place for storing info on Star Wars and its creators and contributors. Therefore, all information should be orientated towards a Star Wars perspective (does this sentence make sense?). If a contributor was using a pen name in their SW works, logically, from a SW perspective, we should use it as the article name instead of their "real" name. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 10:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine a useful purpose which a "real names" policy would serve in this case. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go ahead and say real name. There's a reason we use it for characters; because it's the real name. No such person as Jude Watson exists. There's a person named Judy Blundell who wrote under the pen name Jude Watson. The article about the person and author is going to be about "Judy Blundell" because she's the actual person and author; an article actually about "Jude Watson" would consist of "Jude Watson was a pen name used by Judy Blundell to write young adult Star Wars books." Especially since when it almost-inevitably turns out that Wheeler is Blundell under a new name, we're going to end up having to move this there anyway, I don't think we should have the article at the pseudonym. Yes, it's easy, but it's not very accurate. Think about it from a different perspective; normally, would you say, "This book was written by Larry Fitzroy," and leave it there without the full picture, with the Larry Fitzroy article telling you, "Actually, there's no such person and that's just a name Steve Dinkle uses," would you say, "This book was written by Larry Fitzroy. Larry Fitzroy is actually Steve Dinkle," or would you say, "This book was written by Steve Dinkle under the pseudonym 'Larry Fitzroy'"? If you don't come at it from the perspective that says, "Well, our articles all already use Watson" -- because we didn't know it wasn't a pseudonym before -- and look at it totally fresh, I think there's a strong argument to be made that the logical course is putting it at the author's actual name. Havac 05:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I could probably defend both sides. But I lean towards pseudonym. Here are two reasons:
    1. Since this is not In Universe where we are trying to be as absolutely accurate to canon as possible, I would say that it would be more confusing to have the article named something most casual readers have never heard of (i.e. Judy Blundell) as opposed to the most common name people are familiar with.
    2. Look at actors. Why do we have Mark Hamill listed under only his first and last name even though we know his full name is Mark Richard Hamill and yet we have James Earl Jones listed by all three names? Because those are the names on their SAG cards. Those are the names they use in their screen credits. Same logic for authors. That's the name under which they've chosen to take credit, so let's let that be the name by which we give them credit. Wildyoda 04:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wildyoda. Always go with what said author, or actor, or whatever, chooses to credit themselves as. As for the Wheeler thing, we'll worry about that when "Wheeler" has written just as much as "Watson," if they are indeed the same. Thefourdotelipsis 04:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We've had nearly a month with no further comments, so I'm going to start vote. jSarek 11:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Use author's real name

Use author's pseudonym

  1. I think Fourdot said it best: "Always go with what said author, or actor, or whatever, chooses to credit themselves as." jSarek 11:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. The few cases where someone is credited under two different names, or is more famous using a name not used for Star Wars work, can be resolved on a case-by-case basis using common sense. (I don't think there are any examples of the second case anyway.) —Silly Dan (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. They chose it. Chack Jadson (Talk) 13:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. JMAS Hey, it's me! 13:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per 4dot and Silly Dan; it's the only remotely professional way to handle it. This is one of those cases where pure logic isn't sufficient. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per me. Wildyoda 16:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per Dan. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. To do otherwise would be amateurish. Thefourdotelipsis 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  11. It's what people will be Googling anyhow. Graestan(Talk) 23:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  12. Provided that the real name is linked with a redirect. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 22:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No policy

  1. Feh. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments