This is only a very recent issue, and one that—at present—spans only two articles. However, it is applicable for possible future cases (or articles we may have not found yet that might apply) so it is worth bringing up, I feel.
In the past two years or so, we have found two articles that required redaction of their canonical titles due to violation of Fandom's terms of service. One of them was outright a slur and the other was just wildly inappropriate, but both were in violation. The articles in question are, of course, Identified Rebel and Identified time period, respectively.
I will preface by saying I am not against redacting these titles. To the contrary—hell, I was the person who pointed out the first article to begin with. But I do have a bit of a problem with the manner in which the redacted titles are named/formatted. This might be emblematic of our larger issue with the "Unidentified" article titles (which is a far, FAR bigger beast we need not get into right now), but nonetheless, I feel the formatting of "Identified" [subject descriptor] is just... incredibly awkward.
With the unidentified articles, there is at least the argument that being unidentified, to an extent, is part of their content. It serves as a descriptor in some way because we do explicitly lack that knowledge about the subject. "Identified" is less so, however. While it's certainly true that these subjects have been identified, the fact they have been identified isn't exactly a significant part of their content (as their actual identities themselves, of course, were). Furthermore, the fact that we title them "Identified" gives off the impression—or at least I feel it does—that we are intentionally withholding that information from readers (which, I mean, we technically are, but for a good reason).
My larger "blanket" proposal of sorts is that these articles—both the two current ones and potential future ones—be given more unique titles than their current formatting, so as not to establish an awkward-sounding and potentially misleading precedent for such articles. My individual proposals for their titles are along the lines of "Kabaira Rebel" and "Plague on Moltok," respectively, though such titles are of course up for discussion if the blanket proposal is smiled upon by y'all. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Discuss
- I like this idea. Imperators II(Talk) 21:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would work, yeah, agreed. Although before the argument to re-name them back to what they originally were inevitably shows up, physically not an option so long as we're on the Fandom platform due to rules as noted above, lest we all get global'd, so better to work with within that safely.—spookywillowwtalk 21:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we're being real, even if we weren't being hosted by Fandom I'd still probably oppose the rebel's article being reverted, cos again it is just straight up a slur. For the period of time's article I'd maybe be a bit more lenient given the title has obvious inspiration from the manner in which real-world historical events are named and it isn't literal in definition, but even then it's still a very unfortunate name. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, yeah, same, I agree with the redactions. I'm merely pointing it out early on in the SH to deter (imo) pointless arguments over whether we should "fight Fandom" to move it back for the sake of canonicity, which while that isn't my stance, is one that might show up. But it just results in global'd editors so mentioning early on that it probably isn't worth it at this juncture to risk a global.—spookywillowwtalk 21:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we're being real, even if we weren't being hosted by Fandom I'd still probably oppose the rebel's article being reverted, cos again it is just straight up a slur. For the period of time's article I'd maybe be a bit more lenient given the title has obvious inspiration from the manner in which real-world historical events are named and it isn't literal in definition, but even then it's still a very unfortunate name. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Plague on Moltok" is a good title, but it sounds a bit more like an article that should be in Category:Diseases and maladies rather than in Category:Time periods. A title along the lines of "ecological catastrophe" (from Star Wars Encyclopedia, p. 196) or "industrial age" (from Ultimate Alien Anthology, p. 72) might be better suited for an article about a time period or event.—DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- I recently came across this issue when I filled the Appearances section of the unlicensed source "As Cold as Charity." I was not familiar with the term when I first read it, so in the context of the source it was hard to tell whether it was referring to a type of creature, a social group, or a sentient species. After looking it up however, and given that the planet described in the source is an ice planet populated by elks and nomadic herders, it seems obvious that the term in question is from the real-world. It seems that this term was historically used in a derogatory manner to describe the Sámi people. I just wanted to point it out here because I don't know how we should handle it. I'm not even sure if this unlicensed source should be covered at all on Wookieepedia (see discussion here on unlicensed sources).—DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, redacted that to Charity settler group. Imperators II(Talk) 14:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- This definitely seems better and less awkward. Wok142 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- What would be misleading about "Identified"? SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)