Forum:CT:Clone names vs. numbers

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Clone names vs. numbers

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 was No change in policy. Continue to refer to clones by their numbers where available. —Xwing328(Talk) 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the habit on Wookieepedia has been to use clone's numbers instead of their names. The response I have gotten is that it was decided *somewhere* that the numbers are their "real" names and the names that everyone uses are their nicknames. For instance, Commander Cody's article is at CC-2224, despite the fact that the article itself refers to him primarily as "Cody". According to the naming conventions we are meant to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." The films and especially the TV series make it clear that although their designation numbers are used on occasion (usually for official reasons), the clones most common names in-universe are the ones they use to identify themselves: Cody, Rex, Fox, etc. It is also just as clear that their names are the more commonly used by Lucasfilm, as indicated by their mentions and entries at StarWars.com. I think the Wookieepedia needs to adhere to this guideline and make sure that all clones with a known name have articles at that name. Darth Prefect 03:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Mmm, I disagree for the very reason you cited, and why we do this in the first place. Numbers = official; nicknames = colloquial. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • How does the "official" vs. "colloquial" have anything to do with what I cited? I cited the need to use the "most common" name as listed in the naming conventions. The most common names are clearly the "nicknames", used in-universe and by Lucasfilm. That would make "Cody", "Fox", etc. more "official" than an identification number given for purely organization reasons. Darth Prefect 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree for a simple reason: it's a nickname and nicknames sometimes change. Nate vs Jangotat, Davijaan vs Oddball - which is more common? The official designations stays with clones from the very birth, we should stick with them. Mauser 03:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Then why is it Leia Organa Solo and not Leia Organa (or even Leia Skywalker)? The fact that a character's name changes should not prevent one from determining which is the most common one used -- at the time -- and sticking to it. Darth Prefect 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Because when two people love eachother, they get married and one, in this case the woman, may change their last name to match the other's. The name is official as Organa is her middle name. And after they were married Solo became her last name. And by that logic, her name was immediately changed from Skywalker at birth. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 13:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Two minutes worth of digging in the CT archives produced this — Forum:CT:Clone trooper names vs. numbers. You might want to check out the outcome there, since you appeared to think ("it was decided *somewhere*") that it may not have been debated before. So, from what I can see, that CT and it's outcome would be the response you were given; it probably should have been linked to you by whoever so as to avoid any confusion. I hope that helps, 142.166.146.157 14:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That is a discussion from before The Clone Wars movie and TV series, which are a higher level of canon than the other EU items. In the movies, animated theatrical film and television series, their names (regardless of being "nicknames") are more common, therefore more approriate to an encyclopedia. Darth Prefect 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with the anon and Toprawa, simply because a) we've discussed this as a community before and decided on something, and b) official is official. Like I've said, this has been discussed before. Amendment to my previous comment: If you really feel that strongly about it, then please move this thread on and open up a vote so that the community can decide again what route they want to take. Greyman(Talk) 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting

There are two options, necessitated by the fact that for some clones we only have names to work with, and some only are given numbers by available canon. Please choose the system you prefer. Graestan(Talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Names, where available

  1. If they are more commonly referred to by a name than a number, using the name makes more sense to me. -- Ozzel 08:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Ozzel. We have policies for IU name-changing anyway (the whole "Darth" thing) if they are best known by their name, rather than number, name should be used. Din's Fire 997 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Ozzel. Take Cody: He is way more commonly referred to as "Cody", and nobody calls him CC-2224. Cases like Cody or Bly should have their article at their nickname. IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 03:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Numbers, where available

  1. Like Toprawa said, and the argument that swayed me over to numbers last time: The numbers are their official designations from creation, and anything else are merely nicknames given by Jedi or other clones. Graestan(Talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Toprawa. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Blindingly obvious. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, go with their official designation. The nickname will redirect to the article, or at least a disambiguation page anyway, so it's not like anyone can mount the argument of not being able to find a clone trooper because they only know their nickname and not their trooper designation number. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 22:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per above. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 23:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. So long as we make exceptions for the handful of clone troopers who permanently left the GAR at some point and took up "regular" names. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Considering the fact that we know multiple clones share the same name (there are several Sevs and Fis for instance), it could get confusing. Also, per Silly Dan on the troopers who left the GAR. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 08:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Darth Culator pretty much sums it up for me — especially since we've gained consensus on this in the past via another CT. I've never liked the "it's more common" argument, especially if it's not official. If there was a character in Star Wars with a canonically established name of "Jason Smith," but all his IU buddies always referred to him as "Jay," I would be really disappointed if we had the article at [[Jay]] instead of [[Jason Smith]]. I naturally transfer this over to clones, where what if we have a clone who we know his official name is CC-90, but all his IU section mates and commanders call him "9-D" or even "90"? What's more correct, in my mind and wiki-experience at least, is to have the article at his/her proper name, redirect the nickname (because that's what it is, in all seriousness), and then list the nickname (just like we do anyways) in the introduction with any others. Again, I'd be really scratching my head if we had the article at [[9-D]] instead of [[CC-90]]. Also, Silly Dan brings up a good point that I've always stood by in support of too. Greyman(Talk) 09:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Does this mean we can move Alpha-Ø2 to Mandalore the Resurrector? 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess it's been a while since I've looked at the Alpha-Ø2 article, because I thought it already was at Mandalore the Resurrector :P lol. Greyman(Talk) 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per Silly Dan and Greyman. Hey, that rhymes! SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 11:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Greyman's argument is enough to finally earn my vote. jSarek 11:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Yeah, I'd rather not entertain the notion that we should eventually have articles at Gryph or Hobbie Klivian, thank you very much -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Per myself as above Mauser 13:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. How many bloody times do we have to go over this? "Names" are just nicknames, and there's absolutely no reason to have an article title at a nickname when the name is known. Havac 22:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  14. Per Cavalier One. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  15. This is…a…uh…blindingly obvious thing. To some of the people in the opposite column: On the internet, I'm waaaay more commonly known as "Pix," (a nickname) but that doesn't change the fact that my [screen]name (and therefore official name) is "Pixelle." We want to be as credible as an encyclopedia as possbile, no? Then why the heck are we even having this vote?? Because that's how "Wikipedia" does it? Omfg, please no…...anyone else tired of these of types of things? While we're at it, let's use royal titles in article names! Oh…wait…we killed that idea cause it was dumb too. Seriously, if we start putting articles at nicknames, and it will only start with clones (like we all know it will) and more votes will expand from there, just to satisfy the opinions of a few people who like "Cody" instead of "CC-2224" it won't stop. Why kill our cred on the internet, and more importantly with the big guns like Lucasfilm Ltd., just because people like to search for a nickname instead of a real name or disignation? The answer: we simply don't. That's what redirects are for, people, so that the nicknames, etc. can be redirected to the actual name of the person. Redirects are super cheap, folks—way cheaper than our credibility. Pixelle(Talk!) 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  16. DarthDragon164BlackdragonDragon's Lair 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  17. Naru, NH. Aren't all of our screen names nicknames, should we change our usernames so we are using real names and are thereby official, or by that logic are our screen names our official names and we should go by them in real life? But people already call us by our real names and will continue to call us by our real names but our official name (If the process is respected) would be our screen names. Something to think about. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 13:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.