Common names[]

The naming conventions state:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Would it be proper, then, to move Jabba Desilijic Tiure to Jabba the Hutt and Mitth'raw'nuruodo to Grand Admiral Thrawn? I'd say emphatically YES, but I don't want to ruffle any feathers; I'm new here. — SavageBob 19:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that topic is actually the subject of intense debate (see here, most notably). This issue is not always clear-cut, however—I'm not the most knowledgeable about the specifics, but I gather that there are other factors at work in alien names, especially Thrawn (and he is somewhat of a touchy issue around here). As my vote shows, I agree the we should have the policy of most common name, but I admit that there may be mitigating circumstances in some instances (by the way, this page was essentially copied from wikipedia, as you no doubt can tell: it hasn't been Wookieefied—converted for use here—yet, meaning some of the content, such as this example, does not reflect community consensus). Still, thank you for asking; many of our new users would simply go ahead with controversial page moves without discussing first. RMF 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like most voters chose "common name" over "birth name" — not a true consensus, perhaps, but a majority. But I just want to be extra sure: Will I be branded a traitor and chased away with picthforks and torches if I (for example) move Jabba Desilijic Tiure to Jabba the Hutt? — SavageBob 20:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • In those specific cases, please leave them where they are. "Grand Admiral Thrawn" isn't Thrawn's name any more than "President Bush" is Bush's name. Ditto with Jabba. - Lord Hydronium 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But that was the point of the vote, wasn't it? Jabba's real name isn't the issue, it's the fact that people voted to name articles by common names. "Jabba Desilijic Tiure" isn't his common name; it's one that only maybe 1% of visitors to the site will search for. If not Jabba the Hutt, than certainly Jabba should be okay. And if titles aren't permitted, Thrawn should be at Thrawn. (I'm not trying to pick a fight, mind you; just trying to carry out what seems to be a consensus). — SavageBob 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Not to carry on this discussion in two places simultaneously, but the vote was between final and birth names. "Well-known" wasn't in the title, wasn't the subject under discussion, and shouldn't have even been an issue. In cases like Thrawn, "well-known name" and "final name" (both of which were listed in the winning vote, I should mention) are distinctly not the same. As such, I would give priority to the one the vote was actually for and the one under discussion. As to Jabba Desilijic Tiure being under Jabba (or the Thrawn issue, for that matter), why would you list someone under an incomplete name? Garm Bel Iblis has his full name spelled out rarely, for example; would you title that Bel Iblis because that's what he's most often called? - Lord Hydronium 21:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I take your point on the Bel Iblis/Garm Bel Iblis thing. In this case, the, I would support Jabba the Hutt, as that's his best-known name (even if it is a nickname or alias). I'm just supporting a well-worn Wikipedia convention to use common names. I realize that this isn't Wikipedia, but there's no reason to reinvent the wheel all the time. Consensus on Jabba is also overwhelmingly against the "correct" name: Jabba the Hutt: 370 links; Jabba: 116 links; Jabba Desilijic Tiure: 97 links. It's like we're being obscure on purpose. — SavageBob 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with SavageBob, and I believe I mentioned WP's precedent in one of my comments on the consensus track page. That last consensus track was far too specialized, however, we were deciding on Grievous' naming alone. We should create a new consensus track, more generally-worded (i.e. birth name, death name, most well-known name, etc) to focus this discussion in one place. RMF 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
          • We're being accurate on purpose. Jabba's name is not "Jabba the Hutt". Besides the title issue, that's missing over half his name. "Jabba Desilijic Tiure" is just plain more accurate, and anyone looking for "Jabba" or "Jabba the Hutt" is going to be redirected there anyway. I don't see why we shouldn't strive for the most accurate title. - Lord Hydronium 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• To say about Thrawn, "Grand Admiral" should never be added since he was only Grand Admiral once. Thrawn was also a Commander. As for whether to use the core name or the Chiss name, I'm both ways, but leaning towards core, as it would be used more and less redirects would be needed. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I started a unified consensus track discussion about this topic here. Please voice your opinion. RMF 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to CT Archive thread resulting in new policy[]

Forum:CT:Naming policy resulted in this page being rewritten. —Silly Dan _(talk) 14:21, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

What if later sources spell it differently?[]

Perhaps something should be added about what to do when later sources spell things differently? I'm thinking about a particular creature that was known as "the Grudakk" in its first appearance (The Adventures of Teebo: A Tale of Magic and Suspense) but which The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia calls "the Grundakk." I'm pretty sure the Encyclopedia screwed up, but we're left to decide which source to defer to. ~ SavageBob 14:39, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Titles of Star Wars works[]

I think there should be a rule to use in titles (unless when it's specifically determined). Titles of books, movies, or games usually have a subtitle, like:

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Star Wars Dark Lord: Rise of Darth Vader

Normally, 'Star Wars' is separated from the rest of the title in italic, but since the Wiki writes the whole title in italic on articles, there is nothing separating the brand 'Star Wars' from the rest of the title. Sometimes, titles are found without any type of ponctuation, or use the colon twice (which is not very correct, gramatically). I suggest that we use the colon to separate the brand 'Star Wars' from the title, and use a dash to seperate the title from the subtitle. Using the examples above, it should stay like this:

Star Wars: Jedi Knight - Jedi Academy

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace

Star Wars: Dark Lord - Rise of Darth Vader

Or when there is no subtitle, just use the colon:

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

What do you think? Many companies use this style on their catalogue. Alexrd 16:56, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

• Discuss first, act then. In any case, changes to any policy must be voted on in the Consensus track. 1358 ^(Talk) 17:15, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • I did nothing wrong though, since there is no specific rule about this. Anyway, it's on the Consensus track. Alexrd 18:11, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

"Unidentified"[]

Don't the new procedures decided at the mofference need added? Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 21:45, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

As those procedures deal with the name displayed in the infobox and not the actual article title, those would be better placed at Wookieepedia:Layout_Guide#Infobox. —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} Thursday, February 23, 2012, 21:49 UTC

clarification regarding definite/indefinite article usage[]

Concerning articles (a, an, the) in page names, this page states: "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." This is not worded accurately: it's not that the galaxy is preferable to galaxy, it's that they describe different concepts (and, in fact, both pages exist). I propose changing this wording 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.

(As far as I am aware, there are no cases where an indefinite article is part of a (non-title) page name, but if there are, the reasoning for that should be covered as well.) I don't expect this to be a controversial change, but wanted to post it here before editing an official policy page. Asithol (talk) 18:48, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

• That makes sense. An exception should also be written in when "The" is part of the title of a document or work of art, as in The Star Wars or in some in-universe example which escapes me at the moment. As for actually making the change, non-inconsequential changes in policy pages, even if they only clarify wording rather than change practice, should generally be proposed in the forums for discussion. Perhaps you could start a thread in Forum:Senate Hall? —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:11, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
  • (1) The exception for titles is already in the policy, in the sentence immediately preceding the one I excerpted. Sorry for the ambiguity. (2) Because, as you say, this isn't actually changing policy, it didn't seem worth bringing up at Senate Hall. But if that's the usual practice, I'll do so. Asithol (talk) 18:18, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
    • (1) Sorry, missed that. Thanks for noticing it. (2) Actually, it would be better in Forum:Consensus track, as I don't think any preliminary discussion would be needed before the policy change procedure. That'd make things faster. —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:02, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

SWTOR[]

After reading the naming policy, I believe I understand it and the reasoning behind it. However, there is a special case I'd like to offer up for consideration. The game Star Wars: The Old Republic offers a number of canonical (Legends canon) storylines with distinct but customizable characters. There are 8 such storylines represented by each of the major classes in the game and each class has a major impact on galactic events, but no name. Based on this policy, since there is no established name for the character, each is given a nickname based on the events of their story. Since the stories are each different, this has resulted in a complicated situation. Here is the title of each article, followed by their actual class and the reasoning behind the title:

REPUBLIC

Hero of Tython

Jedi Knight - gets this name from an honorific applied to him during the events of his story. Subsequently referred to by this name and even referred to by this name in the Old Republic - Reven book, establishing it pretty well as canon.

The Barsen'thor

Jedi Consular - also gets this name from an honorific applied during the events of the story (So far so good)

Voidhound

Smuggler - is given this nickname by a fleet of pirates only if the player chooses the "dark side" ending, where they engage in piracy. If they choose the light side option, they instead become a privateer for the Republic and the nickname is never used. All things being equal, the light side option (especially for a Republic character) should be favored as canon.

Meteor (Havoc Squad)

Trooper - given this callsign when enlisted into the Republic Aegis. It should be noted that all character classes are given their own unique callsign for the 'Space Combat' area of the game. The Trooper article is the only one that uses this nickname because the story lacks a better alternative (the character is normally referred to by their rank, the latest of which is 'Major')

EMPIRE

Emperor's Wrath (Galactic War)

Sith Warrior - given this title towards the end of the storyline and referred to it subsequently.

Darth Nox

Sith Inquisitor - Given this title at the end of the game only if the player is Dark Side aligned. It's fair to assume that a dark side Sith would be preferred canonically, but let it be noted that the player may also be dubbed Darth Oculus or Darth Imperius, depending on their alignment.

Hunter (individual)

Bounty Hunter - Referred to by this simple name throughout participation in the Great Hunt

Cipher Nine

Imperial Agent - Given this title by Imperial Intelligence and subsequently referred to many times, including in the title screens

If you don't see where this is going, let me point out how difficult it was to track down all of these articles. Go ahead, try to search for the Smuggler or the Inquisitor without knowing their specific names. Going to the SWTOR article itself isn't much help either. These titles are all over the place. Per this naming convention, they are all done adequately and some of them are even very good (Cipher Nine, Hero of Tython), others are barely even accurate.

I'd like to propose, not an exception, but perhaps a waiver of this policy in regards to these class names. I think the spirit behind this policy is sound, it helps to lock ambiguous people and events down to a specific canon. In this case, however, that goal is at cross purposes with the nature of the SWTOR game. The 8 classes are all related closely, but no one naming convention can apply suitably to all of them.

Visitors to this site are forced to guess what name was chosen for the class, they are wildly inconsistent, and sometimes arguably uncanon. I think this policy was created without this situation in mind, so I don't think it's particularly dangerous if we take an alternative route. Perhaps "The Smuggler (Galactic War)" and similar titles are more appropriate. The characters are all referred to this simple nomer in the opening crawl, so it satisfies the precision to some degree. Admittedly, it doesn't fully satisfy the policy, but it's a unique situation. The closest precedent would be the KOTOR series of games, which allowed you to customize your character and participate in major galactic events. The difference, of course, is that those games subsequently released material which established a canon. As SWTOR is an ongoing game, it is unlikely we will see that happening, especially with the Disney acquisition.

Finally, I'll leave this quote from the senior writer of the game:

For the sake of this site's visitors and ongoing consistency, I hope we can find a better way to do this. Thanks for listening. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:29, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

• While I greatly appreciate the way you went about proposing this, it's simply not feasible for our purposes and work here at Wookieepedia. We decided via consensus to assume alignment for each faction, with the understanding that if/when a true canonical storyline was established, then we would use that. As for the naming, those names (with the possible exception of Meteor, which I'm iffy on) are all established names that the player characters use regardless of alignment (except for Nox, and that's a separate matter). For example, Hero of Tython and Barsen'thor are both titles that are received at the end of Act I, and are used consistently to refer to the players in the later storylines. If you'd like, I can adjust the Star Wars: The Old Republic to highlight or otherwise point readers to the classes' respective articles. Cade Calrayn 12:53, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the consideration. Individually, a lot of the names are perfect- the knight, the consular; you couldn't ask for a better name for the agent. But the principle is just that there's no consistent way to name all 8 characters. The practical issues arising from that are two fold: first, that it's difficult for visitors to find the articles. Second, that it's difficult for visitors to understand that the "Meteor" article represents the "Trooper", etc. Improving the links on the SWTOR article would certainly help. Ideally if we can somehow associate the class name with the article name in the lede. The actual section of that article that deals with the classes is buried under the enormous plot summary. If we could also do something to improve the searchability of the articles, as well. For example, what's the policy on naming redirect pages? If we could create redirect pages such as Trooper (SWTOR) that automatically redirect, this could improve the searchability without negatively impacting the articles. Finally, I'm not entirely sure where Wookiepedia draws the line between in-universe and out-of-universe tone, but if we could somehow acknowledge in the ledes of each article that the article represents the SWTOR character, this would also improve things, in my opinion. Appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:56, March 21, 2015 (UTC)