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 Amend naming policy with proposed change. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 15:58, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

At Wookieepedia talk: Naming policy#clarification regarding definite/indefinite article usage, Asithol has suggested rewording

"This applies even if the subject of the page is usually preceded by the definite article 'the' in speech or writing: Thus, for example, Death Star is preferred over the Death Star, however the galaxy is preferred over galaxy."

to

"This applies even if the subject of the page is usually preceded by the definite article "the" in speech or writing: Thus, for example, Death Star is preferred over the Death Star. However, the definite article should be used when it's needed to distinguish a specific instance from the general term: Galaxy describes what a galaxy is, whereas the galaxy describes the particular galaxy in which Star Wars takes place."

This is a minor change, and I don't think it would require renaming any articles, but it may clarify usage. —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:34, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

For[]

1. —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:34, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
2. IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 00:30, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
3. I think how we currently handle it is fine. Provided people don't abuse this by trying to add "the" to everything, I don't see anything wrong with this.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 13:07, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
4. How we do it currently is not only fine, but it's correct. "The galaxy" (or "the Galaxy," depending on sources) is the current canonical name for the galaxy. Just like "the Force" is the canonical name for the Force. No one ever calls the Force just "Force," and no one ever calls the galaxy just "galaxy." Moving those two pages, to speak to MJ's examples below, to any other title like "Unidentified galaxy" would be incorrect. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:01, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
5. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:38, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
6. Because common sense and logic. MasterFred^(Whatever) 21:51, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
7. If it is for clarification's sake, then yes. Fe Nite (talk) 15:51, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
8. - Princess GLG 18:54, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
9. Per above. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 19:20, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
10. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:59, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
11. JangFett ^(Talk) 04:01, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
12. Cade Calrayn 04:17, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
13. Sure. Commander Code-8 ^{G'day, mate} 07:30, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
14. For clarification. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:39, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
15. Per CC, lets not complicate. Winterz (talk) 02:04, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
16. 1358 ^(Talk) 19:36, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
17. Per Tope. Any alternative policy that would result in moving "The Force" to "Force" is one that would take a LOT of arguing to get me to consider. jSarek (talk) 06:42, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
18. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:44, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Against[]

1. I personally feel we should be going the other way with this. The definite article should never be used unless it is a literal and integral part of the title (such as The Essential Atlas), not to disambiguate and not simply because it's usually used before the name. In most, if not all, cases, this would mean restricting its usage in titles to cases where "The" is a capitalized part of a proper noun. If an article on a general subject and a specific subject would otherwise have the same title, the latter should simply be disambiguated in the usual manner or treated like any other unidentified subject. I realize this means moving The galaxy to Unidentified galaxy and The Force to Force, which creates an SSD full of redirect links all over the wiki to be fixed, but a little work should never prevent doing things the proper way (and I frankly have never understood the obsession here with avoiding redirects, since they still take you to the right article, but that's a matter for a different discussion). —MJ— ^{Training Room} 00:20, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
2. I agree with MJ. But I'm OK with the other option, too. :) ~Savage 13:52, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[]

• Just so I know I'm understanding this right, this change would not alter the way we currently do this. It's merely clarifying the wording to make it more accessible. Is that correct?—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 04:39, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
  • That's how I interpreted it, at least. —Silly Dan _(talk) 04:53, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, this change is to clarify, not alter, policy. The current text's example of "the galaxy" is presented with no explanation as to why it's an exception, making it useless as an example. It also does not accurately reflect current usage. I understand Master Jonathan's objection, but what he proposes would entail a change to policy and several page names. That, I believe, ought to be a separate discussion; this proposal is meant to be a no-impact wording clarification. Asithol (talk) 15:15, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
• I believe it should also be specified (here or elsewhere) that, when placing a Category tag on a page (at least for story titles), if the page title starts with an article ("A", "An" or "The"), the tag should be formatted so that the title is alphabetized by the first non-article word. For example, A Bad Feeling: The Tale of EV-9D9 is Category-tagged thus: ((Category:Short stories|Bad Feeling: The Tale of EV-9D9, A)) . Just placing the basic ((Category:Short stories)) would cause it to be alphabetized under "A" instead of "B". --k1darkknight (talk) 14:49, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • That should probably be added to Wookieepedia:Manual of Style somewhere. —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:21, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
    • That is not always the best course, though. It depends on the exact title and the number or articles in the category. MasterFred^(Whatever) 17:53, June 6, 2013 (UTC)