Forum:CT Archive/Naming Conventions for Nobility and Royalty

Greetings Wookiepedians! I am an established contributor to Wikipedia, specializing on articals specific to nobility, royalty, and history. Most recent acticals I have created include Welsh peers and Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages (of which is still on-going). I wish to propose that the naming conventions for Wookiepedia be standardized with regards to royalty and nobility here.

An example of what I illustrate is the artical on Breha, Queen of Alderaan. An artical on Wikipedia would be standardized as Breha of Alderaan, following a simular precedent as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Beatrix of the Netherlands, and Margrethe II of Denmark.

This, I feel, would polish Wookiepedia and follow well established precedent in English language practice in formating across all English language media outlets. Drachenfyre 06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the precedent set by Wikipedia, which in actuality is also followed by the Associated Press Manual of Style, which most English language print media follow.

" of " format Occurs most often for monarchs (who often do not have, or do not use, last names). Try to use the most commonly used "Location" for this person's name, and only in the case this format is more often used than the usual " " format.

Example: Jeanne of Flanders and Jeanne of Constantinople both refer to the same person. The first version is slightly more used, so that's the preferred article name.

Note that for monastics also the format " of " exists. If a variant with a  exists, that is the version of the name that is preferred as Wikipedia page name:

Teresa of Ávila, not "Teresa of Jesus" (translation of "Teresa de Jesús," the way she signed her letters and was known in her convent); John of the Cross, translation of "Juan de la Cruz", no "of " available. Sometimes the "of " part is differently formatted: "à Kempis" (in: Thomas à Kempis) would by many be perceived as a last name, while in fact it is "of Kempen" differently formatted. Such alternative format is however only used for a Wikipedia article title, when in English the name is nearly exclusively written in that form (compare: Thomas Becket and not Thomas à Becket).

Disambiguation purposes: for several monarchs and saints this is a great help to disambiguate; in other cases the ambiguity appears to persist, see for example: Elisabeth of Bohemia (disambiguation)

Adopt Wikipedia naming guidelines

 * 1) Wiki naming conventions generally follow well established standardized practices. Following internationally recognized practice in the English language media would further professionalize Wookiepedia in this regard.Drachenfyre 07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Stick with what we got

 * 1) Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 07:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per JMAS explicitly. We go by canon, and based our policies around it, for a reason; also, Wookieepedia was founded to get away from a lot of Wikipedia's article rules, among other things. I can foresee people saying "Leia of Alderaan" already&hellip; Greyman ( Talk ) 08:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the above. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Wookieepedia is also not Napoleon. "If I were not Wookieepedia, I should be Diogenes."  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 11:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Per JMAS. Mauser 11:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) An ill-conceived CT. You want us to add fanon titles to articles based on assumptions that Lucas' nobility creations were based on those of real life, and this is supposed to make us look more professional? Please just drop the issue - it's not going to fly. Stick to Wikipedia if you don't understand that this is a separate entity with its own guidelines - for good reason. Also: article, Wookieepedia. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Not only is Wookieepedia not Wikipedia, it's also not the place for fanon. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 12:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Per all the above. - Cavalier One ( Squadron channel ) 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Per the above, minus the veritable lynch-mob mentality. XD Graestan ( Talk ) 12:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * How long is the vote for? A Week or more?Drachenfyre 07:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A suggestion might be to familiarize yourself with Wookieepedia guidelines and operating procedures before proposing policy changes. But to answer your question, here. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion duely noted, and thank you for the link.Drachenfyre 07:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @ Greyman: "We go by canon, and based our policies around it, for a reason; also, Wookieepedia was founded to get away from a lot of Wikipedia's article rules, among other things. I can foresee people saying "Leia of Alderaan" already…" Greyman(Talk) 08:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is in canon, then clearly that takes prededence. However, given that Lucas himself was clearly drawing on European concepts of Nobility and Royalty, as has most of the authors of canon, by extension we should follow the international precedent already established in instances not provided for clearly in Canon.
 * As for your example for Princess Leia, from the period of her adoption until her membership in the Alliance government, the artical may very well have been titled Leia of Alderaan. However, in Canon she has done FAR more, and may have become known as Leia Organa-Solo as the artical is currently headed. An example here is with the King of Bulgaria, who was elected as Prime Minister of Bulgaria (the Republic). As a child he was deposed by the Communists who overthrew the Constitutional Monarchy. Prior to that overthrow, he was known as Simon II of Bulgaria. After he was elected as Prime Minister, he was known as Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. And the artical in Wiki reflects this shift. So as Princess Leia did other things then represent her people, the artical would reflect that with Leia Organa Solo. There already exists precident for every circumstanceDrachenfyre 09:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification 9_9 No offence, but your little speech isn't changing my vote. We have a set-way of how things are done around here. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done here and my vote is not changing regardless of how much wiki-lawyering goes on. Again, per JMAS -- we are not Wikipedia. Greyman ( Talk ) 09:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect that Greyman.
 * There are additional examples as well. Prince Edward, Count of Wessex, the youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II. Prince Edward went by the professional name Edward Mountbatten-Windsor while he was a tv producer, then when by Edward Wessex in his business dealings once he became Earl of Wessex.
 * Conversley, the Palpatine artical would be 'Palpatine of the First Galactic Empire', as Nepoleon Bonepart's artical is titled Napoleon I of France. Bonapart took advantage of political weeknesses in the First French Republic and overthrew the Republic, establishing the First French Empire, sparking generation of Wars across the modern world. Does not the outline of Nepoleon's history mimic Palpatine's rise?Drachenfyre 10:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "You can start a Consensus Track (CT) about it. Though I can assure you it would be pointless. - JMAS  Hey, it's me! 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)"
 * Clearly JMAS warned me that it would be pointless to offer improvements here. I should have heeded his warning more seriously. It is disparing that well established precident will be rejected in favor of a less then professional approach. No worries though, I will be sure to advise others on my expierences here.Drachenfyre 11:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think he meant its pointless because it will obviously not pass. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @ AdmirableAckbar and I need a name where is the fanon with applying the correct format for a noble or royal name? This is senseless to me.Drachenfyre 12:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct format in real life. Not necessarily so in Star Wars. Giving people titles that have not appeared in canon is fanon - regardless of however things are done in reality. I can't put it more simply than that. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where have I suggested someone have a title they did not have in Canon? Breha was Queen! This is how you reference a Queen in both real life! This is a unalateral decision to list the maiden name as well as the married name, but it is incorrect formatting for a royal family or noble. Wow12:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For instance, can you provide a souce that states Breha's name should be Breha Antilles Organa? Where ever has her name appeared exactly as that? It has not. It was based on the incorrect notion that that was the correct format of her name, even though she is a monarch.Drachenfyre 12:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)