Forum:CT:Naming policy: Canon comic books

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 Vote 1: Support; Vote 2: Option 4: "Star Wars (2015) 20". Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:17, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose that we codify the naming of comic book articles to match the titles used by the publishers and credit pages of individual issues. In effect, this would remove story names from the titles of comic articles. For the sake of manageability, the scope of this proposal only extends to Canon subjects. Any approved change will be added to Wookieepedia:Naming policy.

Most comic book titles on Wookieepedia include the story names, but they shouldn't:

• Marvel Comics presents all of their comic book titles without the story name. For example, Doctor Aphra 37: A Rogue's End, Part I is credited as "Star Wars: Doctor Aphra No. 37" by the credits page (print edition) and "Star Wars: Doctor Aphra (2016) #37" by Marvel.com (digital edition).
• The same is also true for IDW Publishing. For example, Star Wars Adventures 26 is credited as "Star Wars Adventures #26" by both the credits page (print edition) and IDWPublishing.com (digital edition).
• Major comic book retailers, such as ComiXology or Midtown Comics, also practice this. (ComiXology: Star Wars: Doctor Aphra (2016-) #37 and Star Wars Adventures #26; Midtown: Star Wars Doctor Aphra #37 and Star Wars Adventures #26.) This is also seen on StarWars.com ([1]).

Although we're used to including the story name as part of the title, it is not practiced by retailers, publishers, or the books themselves. As such, I propose that the following text be added to Wookieepedia:Naming policy#Comics and magazines:

Do not include story names in the article titles of individual Canon comic book issues (examples: Doctor Aphra 1, not Doctor Aphra 1: Aphra, Part I; Kanan 1, not Kanan 1: The Last Padawan, Part I: Fight; Lando 1, not Lando, Part I).

If multiple comic book issue articles compete for the same title, neither shall take naming precedence. Instead, each article shall disambiguate via a parenthetical descriptor indicating the respective issue's publication year, and a disambiguation page shall be created at the root title (example: Star Wars 1 (1977), Star Wars 1 (2015), and Star Wars 1 (2020), with the disambiguation page at Star Wars 1).

Based on this proposal, the following pages would be moved:

Many recent articles have already been practicing this (Allegiance 1, Target Vader 4, Jedi Fallen Order - Dark Temple 3, or Star Wars Adventures: Return to Vader's Castle 2), so this isn't an entirely drastic change. Please note:

• This does not apply to Legends titles. That's a beast for another day.
• This proposal does not affect any existing policy. The "Star Wars" prefix will still be removed when appropriate, and the number signs (#) will also be omitted. - Cwedin^(talk) 04:11, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

The formal vote does not apply to the list of comic pages being moved, and the actual disambiguation approach will be determined by the second vote, which goes by simple majority. - Cwedin^(talk) 02:44, October 21, 2019 (UTC)

Vote 1: Remove story names

Support

1. As nominator. Big thanks to Toprawa for the help! - Cwedin^(talk) 04:11, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
2. This is a made-up naming convention that our Canon comic articles copied from Legends comic articles. Good to see Cwedin is taking the initiative in correcting this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:17, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
3. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:18, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
4. If it's what publishers do then it's what we should do. Ayrehead02 (talk) 04:29, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
5. Thank goodness we can finally get rid of these awful article titles. MasterFred^(Whatever) 07:27, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
6. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 07:29, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
7. We definitely need such a codification, and the proposal looks well-thought-out. Nice work, Cwedin! Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 12:24, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
8. It was nice being able to separate appearance lists by arc titles, but this will make things much simpler and cleaner. Zed42 (talk) 18:10, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
9. Very good. Tommy Macaroni 18:15, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
10. 1358 ^(Talk) 18:28, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
11. Fan26 (Talk) 18:30, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
12. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:52, October 18, 2019 (UTC)
13. Best that we reflect the actual product produced by the manufacturers in order to maintain consistency. Andykatib 08:53, October 18, 2019 *UTC)
14. Makes a lot of sense.User:Spookywilloww/Sig2 15:47, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
15. Exiled Jedi (talk) 16:23, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
16. Very nicely written. Full support. Supreme Emperor (talk) 16:28, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
17. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 16:30, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
18. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 02:45, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
19. IFYLOFD ^(Talk) 02:46, October 21, 2019 (UTC)

    MechQueste 19:10, October 22, 2019 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Additional provision No. 1 -- Imperators II^(Talk) 19:15, October 22, 2019 (UTC))

20. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 21:09, October 22, 2019 (UTC)
21. AV-6R7^{Crew Pit} 18:45, October 24, 2019 (UTC)
22. NanoLuuke^{Cloning facility} 21:37, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
23. You have my full support. -- Jkirk8907 (talk) 23:04, October 28, 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I don't edit enough these days to have a vote, but I think this is a good idea. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 11:50, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

• Same as the above, but I do have a suggestion. The current list of proposed renames includes the release date of the entire series in the parentheses. For example, Star Wars 72: Rebels and Rogues, Part V would be renamed under this proposal to Star Wars 72 (2015). However, while the Marvel comic book series did launch in 2015 and we do have that page set as Star Wars (Marvel 2015), that issue was released in 2019. I believe that will cause confusion with readers, with the implication of the title being that the issue was released in 2015 despite the article saying it was released in 2019. The casual reader is unlikely to follow the nitty gritty distinction of "the series was released in 2015, therefore that's how we denote the issue). Switching to the year of publication also future-proofs it a bit more too. If the new series reaches #72 in let's say 2024, then changing this now means the readers of 2024 won't be confused as to why the article for the new Star Wars 72 says 2020. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 16:56, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • I had considered that, but I figured it'd be best to do what Marvel does, more or less. I'd be fine with it either way, though. - Cwedin^(talk) 19:05, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • That's a slightly different use case, though. They're saying Star Wars (2015) #72. With that version, it's effectively saying Star Wars (2015 Series) #72. Your proposal is saying Star Wars 72 (2015), as if to say the issue came out in 2015. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 19:09, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
      • And that's why I'd be fine with using your suggestion. :P - Cwedin^(talk) 19:20, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
        • I support Cwedin's amendment that the parenthetical descriptor for the article refers to the year rather the series to avoid confusion where comics share the same title but are published in different years. I agree that it will be good to tackle the Canon comics first before considering the Legends ones. Don't know what Dark Horse Comics' naming policies were towards their Star Wars comics. But it would make sense to have consistency with their official product names across the board. Andykatib 4:47, October 20, 2019 (UTC)
          • I like the amendments as well. Thumbs up. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 21:49, October 20, 2019 (UTC)

Vote 2: Disambiguation

Option 1: "Star Wars 20 (2015)"

Option 2: "Star Wars 20 (2016)"

Option 3: "Star Wars 20 (2015 series)"

Option 4: "Star Wars (2015) 20"

1. This option is a little unconventional, but it groups the comics by series and is more concise than Options 1 and 3. Cwedin^(talk) 02:44, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
2. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 02:46, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
3. The actual year of publication for any individual comic is less critical than the series it's part of, which is why you see the comic industry disambiguating this way. Although it's indeed unconventional as far as how we typically format these things, I'm fine with following the industry standard. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:50, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
4. It is weird, but this is what everyone uses--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 02:53, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
5. Fan26 (Talk) 02:54, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
6. Exiled Jedi (talk) 03:15, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
7. Zed42 (talk) 03:19, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
8. Looks strange, but best to be consistent with the industry standard. MasterFred^(Whatever) 05:19, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
9. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:13, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
10. Tommy Macaroni 07:22, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
11. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 07:28, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
12. Sees like a workable solution. Andykatib 10:18, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
13. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 14:27, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
14. User:Spookywilloww/Sig2 15:46, October 23, 2019 (UTC)
15. 1358 ^(Talk) 18:29, October 24, 2019 (UTC)
16. AV-6R7^{Crew Pit} 18:45, October 24, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Just a question, how would Option 4 work with regards to linking? Would the year be left in links, like Star Wars (2015) 20, or would it be treated as a normal disambiguation and removed with a pipelink? Zed42 (talk) 03:05, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine any scenario where we wouldn't remove the disambiguation via pipelink in in-line text, no matter where the parentheses are placed in the article title. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:07, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. I presumed it wouldn't be any different to normal, just wanted to check. Zed42 (talk) 03:19, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
• Contrarily, I think Option 4 here is a spectacularly bad idea. It operates on the presupposition that any casual reader will know the years of the title when typing it into the search box, which is completely unworkable in any meaningful, practical way. At the end of the day, this is a resource for all Star Wars fans, so any naming/searching decisions should facilitate ease of use, not make it more opaque to a newcomer. I do think it's necessary to include the year in the article titles, for the reasons raised above, but this is absolutely the wrong way to do it. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 12:00, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Typing any of these options already requires some knowledge about the publication years, and the root disambiguation page (i.e. Star Wars 20) should sidestep any confusion. - Cwedin^(talk) 14:19, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • Our plan is not nearly as bad as this non-eligible voter is making it out to be. First of all, Wikia's Search function is poor and unreliable. When you type "Darth Maul" into Search, for example, the Canon "Maul" article doesn't even show up in the dropdown suggestions despite being a redirect to that Canon page. That's a technical issue beyond our capability, so don't form your opinions of anything we do based on Wikia's lack of functionality. The vast majority of people searching for "Star Wars 72," for example, will type that into Search, which will take them to a centralized disambiguation page, as explained in the proposal above. We can set up that disambiguation page to look like this, which will be easy for anyone to navigate and find the specific comic issue they're looking for. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:10, October 21, 2019 (UTC)
    • Heck, our example here, Star Wars 20 from the 2015 series already doesn't show up when you type that into search thanks other articles that begin the same way. Using option 1 as a redirect can help minimize the search concern in most cases. And by making sure our disambiguation pages are as clear as possible and that each individual article has the appropriate navigation aids at the top we can make sure people get where they need to go. Toqgers (talk) 18:47, October 21, 2019 (UTC)