Forum:CT:Laying to rest the question of Jacen Solo's page name

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Laying to rest the question of Jacen Solo's page name
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 Oppose. —spookywillowwtalk 01:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The question of what Jacen's page should named has afflicted us for many years. Let us vote to resolve it one way or the other, so that this plot point of Legacy of the Force and Fate of the Jedi can be for the first time (that I am aware of) put to a binding community vote.

I purpose, that the page currently known as Darth Caedus be renamed to Jacen Solo; with the Sith name left as a redirect. This will be an exception to the general Naming Policy as it stands.

My reasoning being that, while he died as a Sith, the character after death appears as a ghost in Fate of the Jedi, were more than once, both Luke and Ben Skywalker (the main characters of that part of the story) call him Jacen and he answers to that name as his own, and the narrative itself refers to him as Jacen. Thus, I feel that due to this circumstance, since he is Jacen as a ghost (which is really him, per the science of the Star Wars universe), it is more accurate and helpful for the page to be called Jacen Solo.

Moreover, if this CT passes, to keep the Naming Policy up to date, then the Naming Policy point 2, paragraph 1 will be amended to read: "Whenever alternate names are used in canon, use the name under which the subject was known during the later time period (example: Kanan Jarrus instead of Caleb Dume; Rebel Dream instead of Tyrant) or, for characters, at the moment of the character's death (example: Anakin Skywalker instead of Darth Vader; Darth Malak instead of Alek Squinquargesimus)."

Support

  1. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. The name being a spoiler is enough for me-Darth Soda CIS roundel (Talk) 01:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
    • To be clear, names being "spoilers" is a) relative and b) not how our spoiler policy works. We don't hide or not use information just because someone may consider it a spoiler; we represent information as has been presented in Star Wars media, and we tag it with a spoiler template for a period of time. Trying to hide a major fact of a character's history that is a decade old and is the foundation of two different book series just isn't viable. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 01:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Labyrinthine G0B-L1N (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose on both the move and amending the policy in this form. Any such amendment needs to be actively workshopped by the community, and as Imp and I pointed out in Discord, Caedus is unrepentant in death and literally describes his post-death existence as damnation. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 01:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Per Cade. Rsand 30 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. I like to think, with the exception of some very silly and minor things that are existing precedent, CT wording that affects policies should always be workshopped in SH first. I see a naming policy change here, and it's one that's not being reflected in actual policy; on principle, I oppose any CT that is codifying in an exception, and instead of codifying the exception into policy, it's just removing and sidestepping the issue. We've been trying to get rid of these types of loophole CTs for years because they're so dang hard to keep track of and their enforcement relies on the short-lived memories of people who remember voting on them. I don't even really know who this character is, but, I do recall earlier that OOM had been intending to present a well-fleshed-out list of IU quotes and reference points for the community to review, for the (assumingly) many of us who haven't read the series. But, I don't see any of that here, nor on the SH that went up less than 24 hours ago (and yes, I understand there have been prior SHs, but this still does not explain the lack of evidence presented, or even lack of prior SHs with said evidence on them being linked to). It's from what I understand a quite nuanced issue, which is why in my opinion, presenting original quotes and excerpts for review will always be better than what could (or could not be) an interpretation everyone will share as the sole CT logic. But, if it's put back up with evidence, we'll see how it plays out.—spookywillowwtalk 01:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. I've never been familiar with the source material so I don't have an opinion on the name itself, but I agree this needs to be workshopped more. I'd also like to see any future CT not use terminology like "laying to rest the question of X" - things could change in the future, and Wookieepedia has a long prior history of "we voted on this already and therefore it can never be changed," so I'd want to see any CT not be framed as if something can never be discussed or debated again. - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 01:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. No CTs as exceptions. Change the policy instead. That being said, I'd oppose this as a policy change, too. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 03:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. CometSmudge (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  7. Wok142 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  8. This just seems sudden Fan26 (Talk) 06:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  9. Hard oppose on both fronts. I am not inherently opposed to a name change if evidence supports it, but codifying such a change via CT is quite an overreach and further altering the policy itself is something I feel is a non-starter. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  10. 01miki10 Open comlink 08:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  11. Lewisr (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  12. Hard oppose. The name aligns with policy, and its a good solid policy too. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 15:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  13. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 16:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  14. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  15. Sanathestarr (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  16. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 10:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

  • I would encourage a deeper discussion on the way we name beings that are able to manifest after death, perhaps or perhaps not leading to new votes later, but I did not feel it was either needful or within my skills at this time to address that point further. I encourage anyone to share thoughts on this matter of future improvement.SaintSirNicholas (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Is there some sort of coding solution that would display the name searched for, or depending on which internal redirect a user clicked on, would display that specific article name (as well as that name and photo in the infobox) for character names in these instances? Say, if a user searched or clicked on Vader then the page would display Vader or if they clicked Anakin it would display Anakin. I know we can't control how a user arrives at a page externally but surely there's a better way of handling this internally? I myself have been spoiled more than once while casually browsing articles and clicking through links and it totally sucks. It really doesn't make sense having a character's later-chronological name upfront in articles particularly for lengthy articles which are written chronologically and doesn't benefit reader's who enjoy following a character's history by reading entire articles from beginning to end. Labyrinthine G0B-L1N (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)