Forums > Senate Hall > SH:Resolving full names on title pages
Prior Contention
There has been some discussion recently, including on the Wookieepedia Discord server, that full title page names can be confusing and cumbersome on the Wook. Such titles may be difficult for newcomers to the lore to understand and can also be a hassle for editors, as typing out full page names for hyperlinks is time-consuming and linking to redirects within hyperlinks is discouraged.
This discussion has largely focused on character page titles that use full names, such as Landonis Balthazar Calrissian, Leia Skywalker Organa Solo, Cassian Jeron Andor, and Bossk'wassak'Cradossk. The most proposed approach I've seen is to use the most commonly used name for a character across all available sources, while the full name of a character would be written in the first sentence of the article, following how Wikipedia and other wikis style their names.
Because determining the "most commonly used name" is inherently subjective, this involves considering how frequently the name appears in books, movies, and other media. I would also tack on that we should be using the most commonly used name within specifically english sources as Star Wars is a mostly english franchise and we are an english wiki. I'm bring this up for SH to see what other users thing about this and to see if you guys have any suggestions or thoughts and feelings about this potential change.KingAdrestia (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Discuss
- Sticking with character articles only: instead of either always going with the full formal name (as required by the current Naming policy) or always going with the simplest name most commonly known to fans, we should look into avoiding names that are clearly expanded for the sake of formality and are not commonly used—so that means we'd have "Lando Calrissian," "Leia Organa," "Cassian Andor," "Bossk," plus "Thrawn," while also keeping most article titles like "Wilhuff Tarkin," "Gial Ackbar" etc the same. As I said on Discord, the main practical issue for me as an editor is not typing out full names but seeing pipelinks all over the place in the source code, but most importantly, the main issue for me as a whole is that the wiki is giving very awkward and inorganic vibes when we're repeating full names in the url and tab name and title and header and intro and infobox, and formality gets to a point of becoming rather annoying :P OOM 224 15:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. In the Finnish wiki we decided some years ago to remove rarely-used middle names and otherwise use formal names, so we now have "Cassian Andor", "Bail Organa", etc, but also "Landonis Calrissian" and "Mitth'raw'nuruodo". 01miki10 Open comlink 15:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm very pro-full names in Titles. But it sounds like there's a compromise to be had here of shortening the names in Quotes, Image captions, etc. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 16:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- To address the point "Such titles may be difficult for newcomers to the lore to understand and can also be a hassle for editors": we have redirects for a reason and they worked for me perfectly when I was just a wiki reader and they work for me now as an editor. I see no reason to change this when I see no issue to solve. RocketLaunchJr1 Ever been to Ghorman? 15:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I have what I can only describe a OCD to use the "Most Correct Name" for people, places, and things, which to me is the full name of the person/place/thing. As such, not using full names in articles to me just feels wrong and I really don't want it. RocketLaunchJr1 Ever been to Ghorman? 15:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am highly opposed to a change like this. We have redirects for a reason, and as an editor it's never been a problem for me, it's not an extremely common problem like it is for Legends editors who have to use pipelinks for every subject. I've also seen no evidence of readers having a problem with it, as a matter of fact I've really only seen positive posts about people learning the names and seeing them. "Most commonly known" would also be extremely subjective, Darth Sidious for example would need to be moved to Palpatine or Sheev Palpatine. I'm also sure it would also conflict with characters preferred names if an un-preferred name is more known by fans. We'd also lose Paodok'Draba'Takat Sap'De'Rekti Nik'Linke'Ti' Ki'Vef'Nik'NeSevef'Li'Kek and AZI-345211896246498721347, which I've seen people often enjoy seeing/learning from the page titles. TLDR: The names are a non-problem and if anything are better to have to avoid arguments on what's "most known". Mor9347
(Talk) 15:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I entirely agree here as it has also never been a problem for me. I have only ever learned more from the titles. I understand that the full names could still be present in stuff like the infobox, but in my opinion that just makes it easier to miss. If anything I think the more common name should be in the infobox instead. Gonky1138 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is it interesting that Lando has a full name? Sure. But at the same time, most fans will just refer to him as "Lando Calrissian." In these cases, I feel that an adjustment to the naming policy is needed to better reflect the more commonly known version of a character's name. "Commonly known" is absolutely subjective, but we can take direction at least from official sources such as the Star Wars Databank. Cassian Andor, Lando Calrissian, and Thrawn are three of the most cited examples for the change, and in these incidences StarWars.com gives guidance. These are, for want of a better term, their most commonly known names. Now, to be absolutely fair to the other side of the argument, that same databank does list Leia Organa, Ackbar, and Palpatine by names that might not be the best for those specific cases, but I would argue that any policy change shouldn't be a club to hit all the articles with, but a scalpel and that each individual affected article name should be given due care and attention.
Also, it is not as though changing the article names themselves will mean removing the names from the article. Pao will still have that full name in the intro, or possibly even the infobox to some degree (I would support a dedicated "full name" field addition in the infobox if it comes down to it). No information is being lost or removed at any level. The article will still reflect the full names. Additionally, calling the names a "non-problem" is an oversimplification in my opinion. If it was a non-problem, then this SH would not exist in the first place. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 16:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC) - I get both sides of the discussion, though I do think I agree more with Rocket and Mor in that it's more of a "if it ain't broke" situation. An inconvenience maybe, but not an inherent flaw, and I think the way we have it now serves as a good form of future proofing, any more added ambiguity could just complicate the matter for editors down the line. Redirects exist for a reason, so I don't think the casual internet goer is going to struggle to find Lando's article just because it's under his full legal name. Again, I do understand how it can come across as a bit pedantic, but we're here to be comprehensive, not to cater. - MTrac1000 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see no reason to do away with the status quo here. SEO remains largely unimpacted thanks to redirects under the "popular" names and it makes the wiki feel largely more formal. I know I’m always on the side of the wiki need to branch out and be a little more fun but this is one instance where I’ll contradict my own philosophy. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm against this. I don't think the current titles cause any confusion, since it's usually clear what character is being referred to and their more common names are still in the first sentence of the intro. I've never seen any readers say they were confused by the titles, but I have seen readers say they like that articles use their full names CometSmudge (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- While I do get the Databank does not use full names such as Mitth'raw'nuruodo, Leia Skywalker Organa Solo, Paodok'Draba'Takat Sap'De'Rekti Nik'Linke'Ti' Ki'Vef'Nik'NeSevef'Li'Kek, etc., I do find it relevant to note that most of these full names were established sometime after they were first identified. Also, sources like the Databank use shortened names for simplicity, even when the full name such as Mitth'raw'nuruodo existed for years before their current DB entries were created. While some names of characters such as Bossk's full name being a redirect to Bossk'wassak'Cradossk did confuse me when I first saw it, I do find it beneficial as it teaches the reader the full name of the character. StarWarsFan327Talk 22:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Especially in Thrawn's case, keeping his page as Mitth'raw'nuruodo is essential as in both the canon and Legends novels, Zahn put extra effort into the Chiss names, making it very clear that "Thrawn" is just his core or "casual" name, and he otherwise was referred to as Mitth'raw'nuruodo. StarWarsFan327Talk 22:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- We should use the full formal name of the character.SaintSirNicholas (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am 100% in support of using the most commonly used name for a character across all available sources as the page name, while the full name of the character should be bolded opening of the first sentence of the article: Lando Calrissian, Cassian Andor, Maarva Andor, Thrawn, Pao, Bossk, Bail Organa, Leia Organa, etc. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 22:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC) - 'hassle for editors, as typing out full page names for hyperlinks is time-consuming' is just a really weak argument for changing page names. It takes no time at all to do and laziness should not get in the way of being accurate. 'Such titles may be difficult for newcomers to the lore to understand' is what I and others are considering argument unless there is clear evidence that it actually is a real problem, because the examples here seem to suggest that the opposite is actually true. This reads more like personal issues with how pages are named, rather than truly wanting it to be for readers benefit.
I strongly disagree overall that all should be moved. The simple fact of moving certain characters away from having their full name completely disrespects that the characters themselves consider them their names and per the naming policy we should use the most formal and accurate version. In the case of Leia, her POV says in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker: Expanded Edition 'She was Leia Skywalker Organa Solo.' While Chelli Lona Aphra in Doctor Aphra (2020) 27 also specifically replied and noted that "Lona" was part of her name when she was addressed as just Chelli Aphra. I feel it's a non-issue as the reason being presented. In Shadow of the Sith, Lando's POV uses 'Lando Balthazar Calrissian' and it's even used by Luke at a later point in the book. Darth Sidious' databank biography gallery says that 'Despite his public title of Emperor Palpatine, he was Darth Sidious in thought and action from this point forward.'
There's also the issue of how page titles would then be chosen. Are they chosen by what they are most commonly known IU or OOU? How can we even determine what the most common name for a character is? You could make arguments that Leia would most commonly arguably be known as "Princess Leia". And that Gial Ackbar would be "Admiral Ackbar," and I'd also strongly oppose that titles be included in article names. Lewisr (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
