Forum:CT:Han Solo's Aliases

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Han Solo's Aliases

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 consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:37, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Han Solo and his many aliases, he currently has atleast three redirecting to his article, and a whole bunch of others that have there own articles and category. Question is, how do we clean this up? Should all of his aliases hae seperate articles, should they all redirect to his page and/or have a mention on his page? Any thoughts or suggestions? Korsa3 17:35, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Voting Options: 1-All aliases should have their own article 2-Delete any articles and categories, and redirect to main name 3-Other ideas

Voting

Option 1: Every alias gets its own article

  1. I think every alias should have their own article, since there is unique information for the alias. Why was the character or starship using that alias? Where and when? Who were they hiding from? etc etc. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 17:45, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Partially because I think aliases should generally have their own article (with some exceptions/requirements to that), but mostly because it's infinitely easier for users searching for the alias, who may not be aware that it is an alias. I don't see the harm in essentially having a soft redirect that just states who used the alias and when they used it, and referring the user to the actual person's article. Obviously, alias articles should be categorised as aliases only and nothing else. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:16, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • I also see a problem with wook's dubious search results. If someone searches for an alias, and doesn't see an article, they might go ahead and create one, without realizing it's covered in the main person's article.<-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 00:17, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Per jSarek in 2008: "they should be soft redirects, only providing the minimal information necessary to identify their users and the circumstances of their use." Graestan(Talk) 23:49, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • And per Gonk at that time: "Scenario: I have seen the term Muehling somewhere and I want to quickly know what/who it is. If the alias has its own article, I'll understand quickly. If it's a redirect, I may be confused, especially if I'm new to wikis and don't quite understand redirects." Graestan(Talk) 23:52, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • Not to mention the potential spoiler value of opening a page on what you think is a character unto himself, only to be immediately redirected to the real person's page. Graestan(Talk) 23:57, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
      • Why not just redirect the the aliases section in the main article? That solves the search problem. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 04:27, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
        • Because of the spoiler value. And per Grunny below, it only slightly solves the problem. Graestan(Talk) 12:42, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Graestan has convinced me. OLIOSTER (talk) 00:12, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Per Acky and Grae. Basically, I think this is better for the readers, and there's no real detriment to the wiki by having them. Grunny (talk) 13:31, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Per all above, and I'm a bit against separate "Aliases" section for the main article, the information should be inside the rest of it, not separated... –Tm_T (Talk) 14:47, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  7. Every thing gets an article. An alias is a thing. Besides, if I stand by this principle long enough, I'll finally get to write an article on Han Solo's left boot heel. Karohalva 20:06, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  8. Per Graestan, and therefore per jSarek. Also per Grunny. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:38, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
  9. While yes, aliases will cover mostly the same info as the main article, they exist in a different capacity from their main subjects, unlike former names. It's a bit ambiguous, I know, but I believe that they should receive their own articles—we should make them easily accessible to readers. In any case, some site-wide consistency is needed. CC7567 (talk) 07:41, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
  10. Per Omicron ToRsO bOy 00:05, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
  11. If they do get deleted, remember my comments below. Per Karo and Grae. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 21:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
    IT all depends on how "deep" into character Han is if its a name mentioned once, off hand, in a single book or comic why would we make another stub, but if its a name hes used several times or changed galactic history then it should get its own articular! Darth Needham 00:24, April 2, 2011 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Fewer than fifty mainspace edits -- Grunny (talk) 04:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC))
    Hey Grunny fix it I have enough edits now Darth Needham 04:09, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
    No, you don't. And please show some manners. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:14, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Option 2: One subject, one article

  1. One subject, one article. The aliases aren't a subject in and of themselves, but rather just another name for the main subject. Any "unique information" about the alias belongs in, and should be covered by, the main subject's article anyway, so it's technically not "unique" to the alias. Master Jonathan (Council Chambers) Monday, March 21, 2011, 18:16 UTC
    Per Jonathan. Consolidation is best. OLIOSTER (talk) 18:17, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Seems obvious to me. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 18:42, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Aliases should never, ever have their own article. 100% per MJ. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:44, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
    • To answer a few points raised above: calling it a spoiler hazard is completely invalid—if the alias is its own article and not a redirect, the reader is still going to have it spoiled for them the second they read the opening line that says that "such-and-such was an alias used by so-and-so." I'd also like to establish that an alias is not a thing. It's simply an alternate name used by someone/something for a period of time. Coruscant was called "Imperial City" for a time. So, should we make two articles for "Galactic City" and "Imperial City"? Absolutely not! They're the same thing! Voting to keep aliases is a vote to keep pages on alternate names for a single subject. That's essentially a precedent to split the Vader/Anakin article, as well as the Jacen/Caedus one and any other Sith Lord who's ever gone by multiple names. Haven't we dealt with enough headache regarding those already? Keeping aliases is completely counterproductive: it allows for relevant information that could and should fit solely in the main article to instead be split between two articles, thus creating two incomplete pages as opposed to one simple complete article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:31, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
      • To quickly answer some of those points ... there's no reason the information can't also be included in the main subject's article as well as an alias article (although I can't say I'd be a fan of an "aliases" section). Your Vader/Anakin analogy is also incorrect. It wouldn't open a precedent for having two articles on one person, but for having an article on a person and an article on their alternate name/alias, which would essentially be a glorified redirect to the main subject's article. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:24, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
        • If we're including all the alias information in the main article (which we absolutely should), then why in the world would you want a second, therefore completely redundant article on that information? I'm in no way supporting an alias section: aliases should just be mentioned in the history/bio section during the mentions of corresponding events. For example, if Han Solo used an alias for a specific mission, then you mention in Han Solo's article that he used the alias when you detail the events of the mission, and you mention that he used the alias in the mission article, too. But make another article for a fake name used only temporarily? That makes no sense at all. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:35, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
        • Also: "Why was the character or starship using that alias? Where and when? Who were they hiding from?" This information all belongs in the main article. If this kind of information is being left out on a daily basis, then we have a serious problem. And if it's not being left out, then we have absolutely no need for a separate article on it… Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:11, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Master Jonathan. They should redirect, and be covered in the main subjects article. Korsa3 19:16, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  5. wat 1358 (Talk) 19:17, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:50, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  7. Per MJ. Also, does this apply to Han Solo only or all alliases of all characters (I'm assuming the latter, using Solo as an example). NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 20:18, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  8. Agreed. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 20:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  9. I could see Jenos Idanian being left as a sort of disambiguation page since two people used the alias independently, but otherwise I say make all the aliases redirects. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:46, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
    Remember to merge the info into the proper articles though. Even a temporary list of aliases on the character's article would be better than losing the info. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:54, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • Also keep in mind that some characters borrowed other peoples' names. These articles should not be deleted. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:06, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  10. Jinzler 23:57, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
  11. Per Master Jonathan and NaruHina. Imperators II(Talk) 00:10, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  12. Per JJM. I've been wanting to get rid of aliases for a loooong time. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 00:31, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  13. Per Trayus. Darth Karikawill destroy your planet! 15:54, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
  14. Redirect. Spoilers are just part of Wookieepedia by nature, and people are going to be just as spoiled with a stub. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 20:12, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
  15. Per above. Lele Mj Green Squadron (Holoprojector) 15:58, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Option 3: Merge aliases into their own article

May I propose an option 3? There should simply be an article on "Han Solo's Aliases", with redirects from searches and a link from Han Solo's main article, where there is a small section, with link, on a short write up of his aliases. This would be like the "one subject" that User:Master Jonathan talked about under option 2. Fact: Han Solo has 15 aliases, which is no small number by most people's standards, but upon futher examination, only TWO of these aliases, Jenos Idanian & Vykk Draygo have more than TWO sentences!!!!! And plus, most of these aliases were used only once! Or twice, for that matter, but its not like he has a habit of reusing fake names. Perhaps he enjoys being creative? Also, I'd like to say that it would be most unlikely that a reader would mistake an alias for the actual character (unless theres a Han Solo novel written Revan-esque style like in KOtoR), in addition to not expecting spoilers when visiting this wiki. To reiterate, a single nicely elaborated article for all his aliases, with a short write-up plus link on his bio page. PS. I hope I am going about this whole new option thing the right way, I'm still learning the ropes! Cheers Songjin 10:16, March 30, 2011 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: User has fewer than fifty mainspace edits -- Master Jonathan (Council Chambers) Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 23:01 UTC)

Comments and Discussion

  • For those concerned about the potential confusion coming from redirects: would they be less confusing if the redirect led to a specific section of the main article (i.e. #REDIRECT [[Han Solo/Legends#Aliases used]] or #REDIRECT [[Han Solo/Legends#The time he called himself Dave]]]])? —Silly Dan (talk) 12:20, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that depends on the article. On some articles the alias might be mentioned in the middle of a long section. Linking to the section would be only slightly less confusing in those cases. Grunny (talk) 12:26, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • To clarify, are the Millennium Falcon aliases actually aliases, or just former names? I just want to clarify that we're voting on keeping or redirecting alias articles, not former names (which mainly apply to ships). Former names should be redirects into the article proper, since they're not the same thing as aliases. CC7567 (talk) 07:25, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
    • All the ones listed here are aliases. Former names, such as Stellar Envoy, seem to all be redirects. Menkooroo 07:34, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, thanks for clarifying. CC7567 (talk) 07:41, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Just the other day I was checking some ship name what it was, only to find out I'm staring the top of the Millennium Falcon article. Have to admit, I'm usually against nicknames/aliases being considered as their own, but this just was so frustrating, I had no idea where to look the information I was interested to see (What ship in what situation, and who were using it at that time) without reading the whole article or atleast skimming it through. And no, separate "aliases" section isn't the solution I would be happy with, so I have to agree with those who explained the past discussions. –Tm_T (Talk) 16:32, March 25, 2011 (UTC)