Forum:CT:Naming policy: AST amendment

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Naming policy: AST amendment
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 Support both. Lewisr (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Heya, this is for Wookieepedia:Naming policy#Star_systems per the release of the current canon StarWars.com Star Systems of the Galaxy on StarWars.com (current version) (backup link) (previous version) and StarWars.com Star Wars Galaxy Map on StarWars.com (article) (backup link).

Diff link

The reasoning for canon is that Jason Fry was asked point blank if they're alternate in-universe names, and he said yes. The policy doesn't make note of either the new Appendix or new map since they're newly-released, so mostly just updating for that.

The reasoning for Legends is, to phrase it how Imp explained it recently, the current policy text of "does not override" was at some point erroneously also assumed to mean "is not an actual in-universe name." This proposed amendment still does not have Atlas or Companion names override other names, but it does allow for them to be treated as valid alternate IDs. The past CT held on the matter did touch on in-universe names briefly, and at the time his "sometimes" was taken as "never" over time. There's also this which was dug up, which claims the Atlas names used were "the name we thought the general citizenry of the SW galaxy would be most familiar with"; which, if IU citizens are familiar with and/or using a name, then, that is basically an alternate name in the sense of the concept.

This'll consist of two votes: one to adopt a clause that would add the clause about alternate names only for current canon, and one to adopt the same stance for Legends as well. They're not mutually exclusive votes, though if the vote to pass for both continuities is successful, naturally the wording for that would supersede the canon-only proposed clause.—spookywillowwtalk 01:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Canon-only

Again note for above that if the "Both continuities" vote passes, then the wording for that in the diff link above supersedes the proposed canon-only wording.

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 01:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  3. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 01:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  4. Rsand 30 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  5. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  6. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 03:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  7. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  8. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 08:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  9. OOM 224 09:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  10. Imperators II(Talk) 08:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  11. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 09:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  12. ThePedantry (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Both continuities

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 01:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  3. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 01:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  4. Rsand 30 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  5. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  6. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 03:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  7. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  8. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 08:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  9. OOM 224 09:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  10. Imperators II(Talk) 08:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  11. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 09:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  12. ThePedantry (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss