Forum:CT Archive/Naming policy: Canon comic books

I propose that we codify the naming of comic book articles to match the titles used by the publishers and credit pages of individual issues. In effect, this would remove story names from the titles of comic articles. For the sake of manageability, the scope of this proposal only extends to Canon subjects. Any approved change will be added to Naming policy.

Most comic book titles on Wookieepedia include the story names, but they shouldn't:
 * Marvel Comics presents all of their comic book titles without the story name. For example, Doctor Aphra 37: A Rogue's End, Part I is credited as "Star Wars: Doctor Aphra No. 37" by the credits page (print edition) and "Star Wars: Doctor Aphra (2016) #37" by Marvel.com (digital edition).
 * The same is also true for IDW Publishing. For example, Star Wars Adventures 26 is credited as "Star Wars Adventures #26" by both the credits page (print edition) and IDWPublishing.com (digital edition).
 * Major comic book retailers, such as ComiXology or Midtown Comics, also practice this. (ComiXology: Star Wars: Doctor Aphra (2016-) #37 and Star Wars Adventures #26; Midtown: Star Wars Doctor Aphra #37 and Star Wars Adventures #26.) This is also seen on StarWars.com.

Although we're used to including the story name as part of the title, it is not practiced by retailers, publishers, or the books themselves. As such, I propose that the following text be added to Naming policy:


 * Do not include story names in the article titles of individual Canon comic book issues (examples: Doctor Aphra 1, not Doctor Aphra 1: Aphra, Part I; Kanan 1, not Kanan 1: The Last Padawan, Part I: Fight; Lando 1, not Lando, Part I).


 * If multiple comic book issue articles compete for the same title, neither shall take naming precedence. Instead, each article shall disambiguate via a parenthetical descriptor indicating the respective issue's publication year, and a disambiguation page shall be created at the root title (example: Star Wars 1 (1977), Star Wars 1 (2015), and Star Wars 1 (2020), with the disambiguation page at Star Wars 1).

Based on this proposal, the following pages would be moved:

Many recent articles have already been practicing this (Allegiance 1, Target Vader 4, Jedi Fallen Order - Dark Temple 3, or Star Wars Adventures: Return to Vader's Castle 2), so this isn't an entirely drastic change. Please note:
 * This does not apply to Legends titles. That's a beast for another day.
 * This proposal does not affect any existing policy. The "Star Wars" prefix will still be removed when appropriate, and the number signs (#) will also be omitted. - Cwedin (talk) 04:11, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As nominator. Big thanks to Toprawa for the help! - Cwedin (talk) 04:11, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a made-up naming convention that our Canon comic articles copied from Legends comic articles. Good to see Cwedin is taking the initiative in correcting this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:17, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:18, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) If it's what publishers do then it's what we should do. Ayrehead02 (talk) 04:29, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Thank goodness we can finally get rid of these awful article titles. MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 07:27, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  grunny &#64; wookieepedia :&#126;$ 07:29, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) We definitely need such a codification, and the proposal looks well-thought-out. Nice work, Cwedin! TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders.svg  Anıl Şerifoğlu  (talk) 12:24, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) It was nice being able to separate appearance lists by arc titles, but this will make things much simpler and cleaner. Zed42 (talk) 18:10, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Very good. Tommy  Imperial_Emblem.svg  Macaroni  18:15, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) 1358  (Talk)  18:28, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 11)  Fan26  ( Talk ) 18:30, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * 12)  Imperators II (Talk) 07:52, October 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Best that we reflect the actual product produced by the manufacturers in order to maintain consistency. Andykatib 08:53, October 18, 2019 *UTC)
 * 14) Makes a lot of sense. 15:47, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 15)  Exiled Jedi  ( talk ) 16:23, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Very nicely written. Full support. Supreme Emperor (talk) 16:28, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * 17)  Corellian Premier Jedi symbol.svg Force will be with you always 16:30, October 19, 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't edit enough these days to have a vote, but I think this is a good idea. &mdash; DigiFluid(Whine here) 11:50, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * Same as the above, but I do have a suggestion. The current list of proposed renames includes the release date of the entire series in the parentheses. For example, Star Wars 72: Rebels and Rogues, Part V would be renamed under this proposal to Star Wars 72 (2015). However, while the Marvel comic book series did launch in 2015 and we do have that page set as Star Wars (Marvel 2015), that issue was released in 2019. I believe that will cause confusion with readers, with the implication of the title being that the issue was released in 2015 despite the article saying it was released in 2019. The casual reader is unlikely to follow the nitty gritty distinction of "the series was released in 2015, therefore that's how we denote the issue). Switching to the year of publication also future-proofs it a bit more too. If the new series reaches #72 in let's say 2024, then changing this now means the readers of 2024 won't be confused as to why the article for the new Star Wars 72 says 2020. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 16:56, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * I had considered that, but I figured it'd be best to do what Marvel does, more or less. I'd be fine with it either way, though. - Cwedin (talk) 19:05, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a slightly different use case, though. They're saying Star Wars (2015) #72. With that version, it's effectively saying Star Wars (2015 Series) #72. Your proposal is saying Star Wars 72 (2015), as if to say the issue came out in 2015. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 19:09, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's why I'd be fine with using your suggestion. :P - Cwedin (talk) 19:20, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * I support Cwedin's amendment that the parenthetical descriptor for the article refers to the year rather the series to avoid confusion where comics share the same title but are published in different years. I agree that it will be good to tackle the Canon comics first before considering the Legends ones. Don't know what Dark Horse Comics' naming policies were towards their Star Wars comics. But it would make sense to have consistency with their official product names across the board. Andykatib 4:47, October 20, 2019 (UTC)