Forum:CT:Ragnar

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 proposal. Imperators II^(Talk) 14:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Since Chapter 20: The Foundling revealed that Ragnar was Paz Viszla's son, I propose we rename his page to "Ragnar Viszla". —Unsigned comment by Elijah Palmer (talk • contribs)

Support

Oppose

1. As always, an update to the name requires a more official source, which we are not. We just need to wait till something more official calls him by Vizsla. Braha'tok enthusiast ^{Hello there} 09:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

   Has not officially been identified as such yet. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

   Samonic ^(Talk) 10:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

2. Bonzane10 (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Character has never been identified as such. For all we know, he has his mother's last name, and we don't know who that is yet. Rsand 30 (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Dropbearemma (she/her) 10:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Zylum9990 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Same reason we don't have a certain green baby's page titled "Grogu Djarin," familial connection doesn't also mean the same last name. RattsT (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
7. VergenceScatter (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
8. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 17:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
9. We don't know if there is more to Ragnar's name at this time. Immi Thrax (she/her) 18:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

   BloodOfIrizi^(Syndicure) 00:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

10. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 00:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
11. Fan26 (Talk) 01:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
12. Not until we get more info, we don't know if surnames are from the birth mother, other parent, other family or some derivation of the star alignment and mandalorian names for them at their birth. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• This might be a stupid question, but if the character is identified as such in a future episode, we won't need another vote to overturn this, right? Rsand 30 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't need to as far as I'm aware. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 00:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Wookieepedia:Consensus says 'In order to overturn a previous consensus resolution made within two years, a renewed vote must be held with a voter participation equal to or greater than the original discussion.' Lewisr (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
      • No, we don't need to hold any votes to update our articles in light of new official information. Imperators II^(Talk) 09:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
        • Can you point to the policy that states that then please? Lewisr (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
          • Eh, what? I don't think Wookieepedia policy needs to cover "if the community votes to not have an article at an assumptive title and then an official source subsequently does go on to use that same title, the community needs to vote again to allow its usage". It's kind of obvious. :) Imperators II^(Talk) 15:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
            • I don't disagree it's obvious, but if a consensus is reached, then by policy we have to overturn that consensus. The only way to change that in this case is the vote not reach a consensus or an amendment is proposed to the current policy Lewisr (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
              • I see what you're saying Lew, but I think Imp is right, there's no need to overcomplicate this. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 00:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
                • Didn't realise that going by policy was complicated but don't blame me :P Lewisr (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
              • Okay, but in this hypothetical, what if we have another vote but it doesn't reach the threshold of enough votes? Wook consensus can't overrule canon. Dropbearemma (she/her) 03:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
                • Then it'd have to be up for vote until it passed, which of course is less than ideal, but we can't pick and choose when and where we want to follow policy can we? An alternative until then could be to redirect the name to the page, and include the full name on the page Lewisr (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
                  • ...Where does it say we can vote on what canon we will adopt, or that we can leave a vote open indefinitely because it hasn't achieved quorum to overturn a previous decision? That, if anything, feels far more like it's circumventing the rules. Dropbearemma (she/her) 03:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
                    • We still would be following canon, just an unfortunate ruling prevents it from being at the actual title for the time being. As I said there's two ways to change that, get a Holdo Maneuver on a vote that changes the current consensus policy (and just in time for the next episode), or for this vote to not reach a consensus Lewisr (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
                      • This isn't a vote about can the page be called Ragnar Vizsla, though. This is a vote about whether the page can be called Ragnar Vizsla even though we have no evidence he's called Ragnar Vizsla. Once we have evidence,that makes this vote irrelevant.Dropbearemma (she/her) 04:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
                      • It also happened with Sacking of the Jedi Temple. It was TCed before there was a source that identified it. Yet the page was re-deleted even after a new source identified it, which was absurd in my opinion. It was deleted for a while, until I created another TC for it, which doesn't really make sense. I think this policy should be clarified and say the vote result is no longer relevant if there are new sources, and end these arguments.PureBeskar (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
                        • Actually per this, we've had several instances of pages that were TCed, and needed another vote to overturn that consensus if they were made notable in a later source. Rsand 30 (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
                          • Article notability is a very different kettle of Giju than the existence of a subject at an official canonical name. Imperators II^(Talk) 11:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• struck my vote per ^ BloodOfIrizi^(Syndicure) 00:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Striking my vote and abstaining because I don't want this to prevent the article from being renamed should it be officially confirmed. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)