Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Articles for names
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 18:02, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
Should we have articles for proper and family names, like CUSWE, or should we just redirect them to the species article and list all popular names there? (Remember, we have articles for aliases). Stake black msg 19:30, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Like an article titled Skywalker or one titled Solo? I'd say that in cases where an article on a family or descent group is warranted, the proper articles should contain some sort of kinship nomenclature, like Skywalker family and House of Solo in those cases. For surnames that don't probably warrant an article, the name itself instead should be a disambiguation page for the individuals who have that names An example is Calrissian, which points to Lando Calrissian, Raan Calrissian, and others. Arguably, if there's an established relationship between the individuals who share the surname, an article should be created with the "family" designator: Calrissian family, say.. ~Savage
19:48, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
- I mean as in: Aamaw, Aarb and Aarrom. Stake black msg 19:52, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
- My notion is that we shouldn't have those articles. Number one, most if not all the RPG sources these come from say nothing of "common" names and speak only of example names. Second, there's so little that can be said about these subjects that it's better to simply add the info to the appropriate species or culture's article (and most include this info anyway). I mean, if we include articles on these example names, why not have an article on Pash (since Pash Cracken had that name) or Cindel (since Cindel Towani had that name)? I mean, what designates when a given name is notable and when it's not? The lot of them are not notable in my opinion, in other words. ~Savage 20:31, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Singe these name mean something in the species' native languages how about mentioning them in the language article for the species in question and redirecting the article there? Just a thought.--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 21:34, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
- There, and on the species article itself. But I agree. ~Savage
21:35, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
- There, and on the species article itself. But I agree. ~Savage
- Singe these name mean something in the species' native languages how about mentioning them in the language article for the species in question and redirecting the article there? Just a thought.--Exiled Jedi
- My notion is that we shouldn't have those articles. Number one, most if not all the RPG sources these come from say nothing of "common" names and speak only of example names. Second, there's so little that can be said about these subjects that it's better to simply add the info to the appropriate species or culture's article (and most include this info anyway). I mean, if we include articles on these example names, why not have an article on Pash (since Pash Cracken had that name) or Cindel (since Cindel Towani had that name)? I mean, what designates when a given name is notable and when it's not? The lot of them are not notable in my opinion, in other words. ~Savage
- I mean as in: Aamaw, Aarb and Aarrom. Stake black msg 19:52, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
- On the notability of names, these ones that got articles for them are popular, according to the sources. My point is this: why should we delete names but keep nicknames and aliases? Stake black msg 22:59, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have articles for nicknames or aliases either. ~Savage 02:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Bob on this one, on all accounts (especially the nicknames and aliases). I'd be willing to do something CT-wise to take care of both of these; the last time anything like this was brought up, more votes were made to delete all aliases, but the difference wasn't great enough, and the vote closed with no consensus. That was over a year ago, though, so opinions may have changed enough since then for this to pass. I'f anyone's up for it, feel free to make the CTs—one for deleting articles on names themselves (i.e. Aamaw) and one for deleting aliases/nicknames. If no one else does, I'll try to get around to starting them soon myself. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 03:57, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
- I've been wanting to see aliases and nicknames go for a while now too, but I think the best way to do it this time around might be to explicitly state that the only aliases that would be deleted are those that have only been used by one individual. These have no independent history or features, and so are nothing more than articles on redundant information. However, if a single alias has been used in multiple instances by different characters, then it could arguably have a history of its own that can't be encapsulated in the separate character articles. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 09:12, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
- That's actually a good point. I misspoke (mis-typed?) when I said "delete"—what I'm really looking for here would be to turn all nicknames/aliases into redirects; so what I envisioned for nicknames/aliases used by more than one character would be just a disambig page. But I really wouldn't mind if those were kept separately, either. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:47, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
- I've been wanting to see aliases and nicknames go for a while now too, but I think the best way to do it this time around might be to explicitly state that the only aliases that would be deleted are those that have only been used by one individual. These have no independent history or features, and so are nothing more than articles on redundant information. However, if a single alias has been used in multiple instances by different characters, then it could arguably have a history of its own that can't be encapsulated in the separate character articles. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 09:12, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Bob on this one, on all accounts (especially the nicknames and aliases). I'd be willing to do something CT-wise to take care of both of these; the last time anything like this was brought up, more votes were made to delete all aliases, but the difference wasn't great enough, and the vote closed with no consensus. That was over a year ago, though, so opinions may have changed enough since then for this to pass. I'f anyone's up for it, feel free to make the CTs—one for deleting articles on names themselves (i.e. Aamaw) and one for deleting aliases/nicknames. If no one else does, I'll try to get around to starting them soon myself. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 03:57, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have articles for nicknames or aliases either. ~Savage
- The only reason I created articles for names was based on the precedent of nicknames, but, to be quite honest, I'd like to see at least nicknames vanished from the Wook. Names, however, seem to have some encyclopedic value to me. Stake black msg 13:26, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Nicknames and aliases: kill them with fire. They should be redirected to the character who used them (possibly to a specific section for larger articles); in the event multiple characters used it, at most it should be a disambig page. Proper names: disambig page at most for first names. In the event there is unique information about the name itself, include it in the disambig, creating a "descriptive disambig" similar to Three Jedi Masters or Solo twins. Last names should be a disambig page if the characters are not definitively known to be related or converted into a family article if they are related (or both if some are and some aren't, like "Antilles"). That's my two cents. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers Friday, April 27, 2012, 03:21 UTC
- Since Wikia apparently just permanently broke all redirects, we will probably need all of these articles just so our users have even a hope of navigating the site. :-/ As an aside, the disambig for Arhul is a good example of a "descriptive disambig" for a name. jSarek 03:15, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Redirects are working for me: The link [[Solo]] goes to House of Solo, for instance: Solo. Maybe they fixed it? I certainly hope so! ~Savage 13:35, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Redirects in links work, redirects when searching do not. 1358 (Talk) 14:03, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- If I type Solo into the search box and press enter it takes me to the House of Solo page. Is this because of the fix?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 16:37, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- If I type Solo into the search box and press enter it takes me to the House of Solo page. Is this because of the fix?--Exiled Jedi
- Redirects in links work, redirects when searching do not. 1358 (Talk) 14:03, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Redirects are working for me: The link [[Solo]] goes to House of Solo, for instance: Solo. Maybe they fixed it? I certainly hope so! ~Savage
- Since Wikia apparently just permanently broke all redirects, we will probably need all of these articles just so our users have even a hope of navigating the site. :-/ As an aside, the disambig for Arhul is a good example of a "descriptive disambig" for a name. jSarek 03:15, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Nicknames and aliases: kill them with fire. They should be redirected to the character who used them (possibly to a specific section for larger articles); in the event multiple characters used it, at most it should be a disambig page. Proper names: disambig page at most for first names. In the event there is unique information about the name itself, include it in the disambig, creating a "descriptive disambig" similar to Three Jedi Masters or Solo twins. Last names should be a disambig page if the characters are not definitively known to be related or converted into a family article if they are related (or both if some are and some aren't, like "Antilles"). That's my two cents. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers Friday, April 27, 2012, 03:21 UTC
So, should we move on and have a vote? Stake black msg 16:14, May 1, 2012 (UTC)