Forum:CT:Naming policy update for clone troopers

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Naming policy update for clone troopers
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 proposal. Tommy-Macaroni 19:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the naming policy for how clone trooper articles should be titled is perfectly straightforward: they have to be under the troopers' designation numbers if known. If not, the article is flagged with the nickname header. However, with the existence of Star Wars Rebels and the ongoing Star Wars: The Bad Batch, I believe the time has come to formally update this policy with regards to clones who've retired, deserted or defected.

Quite simply put, as depicted in canon media, most clones dislike using their numbers and strongly prefer to use their names. I propose that the policy be updated and re-worded to provide a formal exception for clones who have retired from or otherwise permanently left Republic or Imperial military service, allowing those articles to go by the clones' names, without the nickname tag, even if the trooper's designation number is known. This fits with the in-universe treatment of such characters: Rex, Wolffe and Gregor were already granted an exemption to the rule some time ago, and with The Bad Batch, we have other characters who likely also qualify. To quote Echo in "Cut and Run" on the subject of names versus numbers: "It's ironic. Clones wanted names instead of numbers, and now people are signing up to be given numbers."

The policy as it stands says this:

Use clone troopers' numbers instead of their nicknames in article titles (example: CC-2224 instead of Cody). Nicknames may be used if a trooper's numerical designation is not known.

I propose that it be updated to something like this:

Use clone troopers' numbers instead of their nicknames in article titles (example: CC-2224 instead of Cody). Nicknames may be used if a trooper's numerical designation is not known. An exception shall be made for clones known to have permanently retired, defected, deserted or otherwise departed from the service of the Republic or Imperial militaries, whose articles shall be titled by their names even if their numerical designation is known (example: Rex instead of CT-7567).

In addition, clones who qualify for this exemption whose numbers are not known should not have nickname headers on their articles.

EDIT: I have slightly modified the wording of the proposal to remove a redundant word. SilverSunbird (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. SilverSunbird (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. While the exact wording may need hashing out, I support the spirit of this proposal. Recently, we've seen clones talking about not being numbers and having names—they aren't "nicknames" when that's the name they've chosen to be known as rather than the numerical designation they were assigned. I don't believe this violates our "most formal name" policy, either, as numerical designations are not a name. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  3. This is what we basically do already. As an older example of this, Jaing Skirata. 01miki10 Open comlink 21:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  4. Discussions have been echoing through WP:Discord for the past few months now on this topic, and as Immi says I support the spirit of this proposal. However, I don't think we should stop here; myself and several other users want to eventually see a push towards moving most clone articles to names over numbers, with the exception of characters who have stated to prefer their trooper designations. But I suppose that can wait until a later time. For now, this is a step in the right direction. RattsT (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  5. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 21:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  6. There's a lot more discussion to be held on this topic for the article titles for all clones, but this one here just codifies current practise, so we may as well pass this now OOM 224 21:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  7. CT-1742 Clone Army patch (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  8. Per OOM and Ratts. This topic has been sort of blowing up on Discord on multiple occasions recently and although I agree with this decision, dialogue should be allowed to continue. Wok142 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  9. Per discussion below; a good step Minnabird Naboo (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  10. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  11. I support this CT, as it essentially formalizes something we have done since Star Wars Rebels. Although some have expressed moving clone articles to their nicknames rather than birth-given designations, I would strongly disagree with such a move. But that is for a later time :P --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  12. Per Vitus. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 23:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  13. Per OOM. infectedzombieguyWedgeAntillesHelmet-SWHC4(Talk to me!) 23:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  14. I support this. Personally, I favor an approach encompassing this and other things, per VergenceScatter and Immi Thrax. However, whether we expand the policy or not, I support this as a first step. — YakovChaimTzvi ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  15. DwartiiDelver (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  16. Jedi Order ImpacticForce (Talk) 06:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  17. Per Vitus and this had been done in the past with the clone Skiratas as mentioned by Miki. —Tomotron Revanchist Sith (Star Forge) 07:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  18. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  19. VergenceScatter (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  20. Been thinking about this since The Bad Batch came out. I support the CT. Efe Önem (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  21. Moingx (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  22. I totally agree! LucaRoR (Talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  23. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 17:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  24. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 01:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  25. 1358 (Talk) 16:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  26. Rakhsh (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  27. Tommy-Macaroni 19:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • In my opinion, an individual's true name is what they view it to be, not what an outside force chooses it to be. Therefore, the clone's names are their real name, since it is what they view to be their identity. This should not just be applied to renegade clones. While I will likely ultimately support this proposal, I would like to formally introduce a proposal to modify the CT to apply to every clone, no matter their status. VergenceScatter (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm down for that. And, just to respond to what Ratts said up above, I don't even know how we would determine for certain which clones actually self-identify with their numbers rather than their names (some instances of clones introducing themselves with their numbers, such as Kix in "The Crimson Corsair and the Lost Treasure of Count Dooku" or Vaughn in "Old Friends Not Forgotten", could well just be them being formal). SilverSunbird (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
      • We found a few examples, one being one of the Republic Commandos (I forget which) and potentially Ponds, who some argued as intentionally using the number as his name in the episode of Clone Wars where he dies. But there's a lot of variables in play, and for that reason I think this CT should remain under its current focus so we can hammer out some more details before rushing into sweeping changes. We can introduce a second CT at a later date. RattsT (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
        • I honestly got the impression that Ponds was using his number to insult his murderers in some way. But yes, although I am completely on board with a total change to the naming policy for all clones, this is a good first step. SilverSunbird (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
          • For the record, I feel the same way about Ponds, but it was a point of contention so I figured I'd mention it. RattsT (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
            • Agreed with the above points and certainly willing to help with research into how names and designations are treated in universe; I've got some notes already. Minnabird Naboo (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this current proposal is that the article naming for most clones would still remain the status quo of using clone designation numbers (if known) and only using their names if they've separated permanently (as far as we know) from whatever military body uses those numbers... unless I misunderstood? There's some disagreement as to whether those constitute "names" or "nicknames." Although cloning and other Star Wars stuff are kind of a different situation from the real world, my feeling on that is these stories have treated certain clones' choice of words over numbers as their personal identity. Many started as another clone calling them by it in the manner of giving someone a nickname and then it became their identifying name. Other clones don't express strong opinions on which they're called or assert an identity separate from what they were created for by leaving the Republic or Imperial military. I'd personally support a proposal to use clones' names over numbers regardless of military status. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    • You didn't misunderstand. But anyways, Ratts thinks that we should wait to hash things out and do a separate CT for a future revamp of the clone naming policy at a later date, which I agree with. This is a step in that direction. SilverSunbird (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I disagree with that. If there are more changes we want to do, we should try to make them now. I don't really see a reason to wait. VergenceScatter (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)