Forum:CT:Amendment to naming policy for real-world transgender individuals

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Amendment to naming policy for real-world transgender individuals

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 vote nullified by Fandom decision. Tommy-Macaroni 19:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

---

For about the last decade or so, the naming policy for real-world people on Wookieepedia has been "Articles for real-world people, such as actors and authors, shall be titled according to their actual credited name in a Star Wars work, whether that be an abbreviation/stage name or pseudonym," with a handful of exceptions.

In recent years, it's become apparent that this policy is inadequate for transgender individuals and an additional exception needs to be made so that their articles are titled according to their chosen name, whether or not they return to Star Wars after coming out, as a matter of respect. As our society evolves, so too must Wookieepedia.

To that end, I propose the following addition to the naming policy, to be added alongside the three existing exceptions:

“If a real-world person is transgender and has changed their name since working on Star Wars, their article may be titled by their chosen name and the credited name turned into a redirect.”

For anyone unfamiliar with transgender issues, and how it relates to naming articles, these pages on Wikipedia and GLAAD should help (ctrl+f "name") Toqgers (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Voting

Support

1. Toqgers (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

   AV-6R7 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Blocked user -- Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

   Immi Thrax (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC). ETA: This isn't going to be as polished as I could make it when I've had some solid sleep, but given the length of the dissenting opinions, I want to say something while this is fresh. I also can't separate emotion from this because it is deeply intertwined with issues that personally and professionally impact me. Correctly identifying real people by the names they are known as and with the pronouns they use isn't just a matter of accuracy in what we host. Search engine optimization and website views are not more important than the well-being of real people. Real people are harmed when they see themselves misgendering and/or deadnamed, see it happen to another with a shared identity, or see it happen to a member of their community, like it's more important to make it easier on the people not affected by it than to reduce the significant harms of continuing those practices. It's disrespectful to insist upon using deadnames and incorrect pronouns. It harms the subjects of those articles along with readers and editors who are part of the LGBTQIA+ community. We can identify publication history related to trans individuals without relying upon information that is inaccurate and harmful. Clearly specifying how someone is associated with a work, and if need be mentioning gender identity for an extra tip-off that something isn't a 100% match to someone's prior knowledge, is enough to let readers connect the dots and recognize that what's on the screen or the page is incorrect without relying upon misgendering and deadnaming to do so. For instance, we could say that Wordy W. Wooker is the author of the books Star Wars: Egregious Ewok Alliteration and The Ewoks Hunt at Night which only have a single author credited, without needing to say he was originally published as Wendy Wilhemina Wooker and using that as the article name. Insisting on deadnames to "be accurate" to the publication history is unnecessary. Being part of the LBGTQIA+ community myself, it's been painful for me to read positions that prioritize views and mere convenience over actual people. The well-being of this wiki site and community isn't just about how much traffic is incoming. Immi Thrax (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Blocked user -- Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

   • I want to apologize for something brought to my attention about my prior response. I inadvertently suggested certain opinions or intentions held by the people I was reacting to. I meant to convey my concerns about deadnaming and misgendering, how those practices hurt people, and wanting to avoid doing that here. I want to be clear that the users here did not express a lack of concern or ill intentions. Our different perspectives are about how to best address naming articles and how that choice impacts the site, not about trans people in general. While my personal feelings of hurt are not an excuse, they affected how I expressed myself, and I'm sorry that I did so in a way that could in turn hurt others. // To return to the policy-focused talk: we prioritize naming articles according to the most complete and accurate name for a subject over the more commonly known one, then use the latter as a redirect to the most accurate name. Ex. Leia Skywalker Organa Solo reflects how she identified herself in her final moments rather than the more familiar Leia Organa, and Ben Solo and Anakin Skywalker rather than their dark side names. It would therefore be consistent to name articles about IRL trans people according to their chosen name as the most current and accurate name, rather than by what they were originally published/credited as. Perhaps our social media team could nudge people towards the correct names (ex. highlight one of their stories, note it was written by (name here)) or someone with more SEO knowledge has further ideas to address searchability concerns. Immi Thrax (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
3. SilverSunbird (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
4. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 04:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
5. ImpacticForce (Talk) 04:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
   • There's not much I can say that hasn't been covered by Immi. I want to stress that this, at least for me, is a moral issue. It doesn't seem right to prioritize clicks over the respect for other people. It makes sense to mention that their Star Wars work was credited under their deadname, but to make it the article's title is disrespectful at best. ImpacticForce (Talk) 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
   • The fact we accept Rey Skywalker as her proper article title, but would not extend the same to real humans, is disappointing. I should also note that, while not part of this proposal, any occurrences of "formerly <deadname>," such as here, should eventually be removed. There's a big difference between noting they were credited under a different name, and intentionally drawing attention to their deadname. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, this is personally important to me, and shouldn't be pushed aside for SEO. ImpacticForce (Talk) 03:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
6. Wok142 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
7. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
8. Braha'tok enthusiast ^{(Hello there)} 07:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
9. Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 09:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
10. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
11. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
12. First off, I'd say that the further additions brought up in the comments are valid discussions but should probably be saved for another day. This vote is a good starting point as is. But I just wanted to give a bit of reasoning on why I think this is the right move for the site. First off, as mentioned before, it can be very damaging, insensitive, and invalidating to use the deadname of a trans person. A counter-argument to that might be that Wookieepedia ultimately is not about being nice; our primary concern is being correct. Articles are titled according to how people are referred to in their SW work, and how they are known outside of that is irrelevant to our mission. To that, I'd say that this addition to policy would assist us in our goal of being correct. From my understanding (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, I have tried to do some research into this), a trans person's chosen name retroactively applies to prior instances in their life where they were not yet going by that name. So, their chosen name has been their "true" name all along, even in times when they were still using their deadname. So, if a trans individual went by their deadname when taking part in Star Wars work, their chosen name was still their correct name at that point, even if it wasn't being used yet. Therefore, it would be factually incorrect for us to use their deadname, as well as obviously invalidating and possibly even harmful. Tommy-Macaroni 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
13. Janomoogo (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
14. Erebus Chronus (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Immi and Tommy have said it all. If we're prioritizing search convenience over the feelings of people who are already put through a lot as it is almost on a daily basis, then we're definitely doing something wrong. I get that we document everything about Star Wars, that's our job, but we also need to consider whether or not what we're doing on OOU pages is correct, and I honestly don't see and refuse to see what good opposing this would do to our image. The Wook isn't all that matters in this case anymore, the feelings of other humans does right now. Erebus Chronus (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
15. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 14:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
16. NanoLuuke^{Cloning facility} 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
17. Editoronthewiki (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
18. Per the discussion below, I think we can see more changes to the naming policy, but that can happen at a later date. For now, this is a necessary change that is in-line with our mandate of professionalism. As Tommy has pointed out above, these are the individuals' true names; to try and pretend otherwise is damaging to both them and ourselves. I hope we all can agree on that. RattsT (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I encourage everyone to please read my latest comment in the Discussion section below. This proposal is already supported by long established policy that protects individual privacy. Therefore, this debate shouldn't even be needed. RattsT (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

    01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 16:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

    OOM 224 ^{༼༽talk༼༽} 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

    • While SEO is of great importance by virtue of prompting people to visit the site, article titles should not be confined to what people would commonly search for. It's our loss if OOU person articles, much like IU articles with somewhat ridiculously long names (i.e. Pao, Death Star II, and Thrawn), aren't comprehensive enough to include both a person's credited name and their real name, and it's people's loss if they are restricted by their inability to make a thorough search—which would only constitute one second of scrolling down—for their desired topic. Wookieepedia should not be bound by people's laziness. Accuracy of information should never be sacrificed for attending to people's incompetence. Besides, OOU people are not the primary focus of Wookieepedia. Give a person time, access to the Internet, and the slightest desire to learn more about Star Wars and they would inevitably stumble upon Wookieepedia by simply browsing for virtually any in-universe subject. Concerns about SEO for a site big as this should not take precedence over staying true to reality and getting people's names right. OOM 224 ^{༼༽talk༼༽} 21:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

    Entirely per Tommy Fan26 (Talk) 17:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

19. I do believe this should be extended for cis individuals too; if they opt to change their name, I don't see why we shouldn't respect it as much as we would respect a trans individual doing it. That said, it is also appropriate to have a redirect from the former name and include that in the article, both for SEO purposes and for reader clarity. "Deadnaming" might be considered insensitive by some but we're in the business of building an encyclopedia and if someone in the past went under a different name and was credited as such, then that should be documented in the article. 1358 ^(Talk) 21:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
20. Many of us are still learning about these kinds of issues, but treating someones chosen name as their true name is how this should be done. If we can change the name of an article from "Jacen Solo" to "Darth Caedus" because that's the last name a fictional character identified himself as, we can extend the same courtesy to real people. JMM (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
21. Nostalgia of Iran (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
22. This is definitely a move in the right direction, and as noted elsewhere, it may be that we need to do more as we evolve the way articles are presented to reflect real-world issues. In our desire to document Star Wars material, we see the goal to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible. This is not a bad thing at all, but we must also realise that sometimes exceptions have to be made as society and our understanding of issues changes. At the end of the day, we need to remember that these articles are about real people with real feelings. For a lot of Star Wars professionals, Wookieepedia pages are one of the first search results that are returned, and seeing themselves misrepresented and misgendered is undoubtedly upsetting. Respecting their wishes in those instances where they do not want their deadname to be acknowledged is a simple courtesy we should be willing to extend. - Sir Cavalier of One^{(Squadron channel)} 23:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
23. We went through this recently at MA, though with a fictional character. We had a similar case with a transgendered person changing their name. They were (like it appears in this case) accepting of a reference to their deadname when used for credits only. We've noted that they were incorrectly credited and left it at that. Their article was renamed appropriately, as were all links/etc. The deadname was left as a redirect in case people see that in the credits of the episode) and that's more than sufficient for SEO to still find it. Let's be honest here... Robin is right there asking you to respect them? How can you not respect someone's wishes? It should be as simple as "rename the article" and correct credits as appropriate, simply note that they were incorrectly credited previously, and call it a day. -- Sulfur (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    • To clarify for others, this proposal has nothing to do with the Robin Pronovost article, nor does it have anything to do with article prose. This amendment is only in regards to the naming policy for article titles. Let's not conflate two separate issues. Robin's article is already under their preferred name because that's how they are most recently credited in Star Wars media. MasterFred(talk) 20:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Except that it's not and it does. Robin's article says "formerly <deadname>". That has to be part of the conversation. That IS the conversation. -- Sulfur (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
      • You may wish to re-read the proposal above and re-evaluate your vote because that's not at all what you're voting for. 1358 ^(Talk) 20:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
      • (Responding to Sulfur): No, it doesn't. And I'm going to warn you and everyone to stay on topic with regard to the proposed topic of this forum, as we would for any consensus forum. You can use whatever personal motivation you want to vote however you want, but you won't sidetrack this forum with an accessory and/or off-topic issue. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
24. Clearly this is something more important than Wookieepedia or SEO issues, but others have already expressed my own opinion on the matter more eloquently than I ever could. Lelal Mekha ^{(Audience Room)} 18:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

    Robin Pronovost had been attempting to remove their deadname from their entry personally, and got shot down. Robin then reached out to Pride Squadron, a group of LGBTQ Star Wars fans and allies, and one of their members reached out to me as a Wookieepedian, and I found the discussion/vote here. For this case, the real world person has indicated their desire for their entry, and I think that needs to be respected. Ultimately it comes down to respect. If a real-life person wants something pulled from their entry, I think we need to respect that. As a rule, I think this respect extends automatically to trans individuals who indicate that their previous name is a deadname. In a sense, this is like doxxing someone. Let's not do that. Jawajames (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC))

    SEO is not Wookieepedia's goal. If it were, DS-1 Death Star Mobile Battle Station would be Death Star. Renaming pages would not affect Wookieepedia's search feature, either, since redirects would be created. (Users may not typically search for "William December Williams," but if they did, they would find what they were looking for.) Our goal is to document Star Wars accurately, and this amendment does not conflict that. If it's so necessary, we can apply {{ID}} to relevant articles. (See Glynis Oliver in this infobox). I'm in strong support of this amendment. - Cwedin^(talk) 17:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Blocked user -- Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

25. Since I'm tuning in so late, the preceding votes have basically already expressed anything that I would add, but I'll briefly comment regardless. When first reading over the reasoning here, I had wondered whether the effect on SEO would make any significant difference; per Ayre's recent comment below, any impact on SEO would be too small to be concerned about. Ultimately, we should respect peoples' chosen names. If there is any confusion over individuals who have been credited under different names, we can do our best to provide clarification in an inoffensive and encyclopedic manner. Zed42 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
26. Per above Ramsay Sanders (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
27. RogueWhistler (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

    It's the right thing to do. Bella'Mia (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- 1358 ^(Talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

28. Per above. We should as an encyclopedia accurately reflect how people choose to identify themselves. A redirect to their previous identity is a good compromise for minimising SEO confusion. Andykatib 7:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

    Menkooro (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- 1358 ^(Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

    Without question we should be using people's preferred names. TLM⁸⁶ 13:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- 1358 ^(Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

29. Pretty much per Xd1358. If you've been credited under another name for whatever reason, then I think it's correct for an encyclopedia to mention that for the sake of reader clarity. But this particular vote is about article title, and I don't think the arguments against are compelling enough to not reflect how people choose to identify themselves. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

    Per above Garde impérial (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- 1358 ^(Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

    This shouldn't be up for debate. Credit people by their chosen names. (Vote struck per policy: Unregistered user, item 1 -- DarthRuiz30 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

    The existing policy was not written with transgender people in mind. This should've been changed years ago. Dscarpa (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- Imperators II^(Talk) 18:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

    AlmightyFreeman (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2021 (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- DarthRuiz30 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

30. Dentface (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    I've done my 50 edits to say "Trans Rights." The article is about who they are, not the person they happened to be masquerading as in the past. — I know I'm not a regular editor anymore, and my name probably doesn't mean a lot to most of you, but I'll say this: if you don't immediately try to remove these transphobes from their positions of power, then Wookieepedia will still be controlled by transphobes. The people they consent to promote will still be anointed by transphobes. And Wookieepedia will be right back here, just like this is the "right back here" relative to the whole Breast "joke" debacle in 2014. And how was that "Resolved?" The Administration posted this bloviating non-apology that isn't even linked from the archive of that April Fool's Day joke, so the history of their misconduct is buried as lore even within Wookieepedia itself. That's how power works when you have it and you're not fit for it. The next Consensus Track topic should be a vote of no confidence in any Bureaucrat, Administrator, AgriCorps, Inquisitor, and EduCorps who opposed this. If they're a bloc that sticks together because they promoted each other, they should exit power together. Had that happened long ago, this wouldn't have happened and a lot of cool people who were edged out by this administration over many years might still be around. — I don't care whether or not you include me in "cool people." For myself, it's difficult for me to even visit this site because of a long history of acrimonious feelings flung between myself and people who you'll be more familiar with. When I make a statement like this, they're usually pretty quick to personally attack me underneath, because we know who those NPA rules don't apply to. And, anticipating that, I've lashed out pre-emptively when that wasn't appropriate, which I regret. But it's appropriate now. This must not stand. Remove them and institute term limits on these positions yesterday. Stop pretending like "they're a good, active writer" is a proxy for "they're a good leader" while their cronies kiss the ring by going on and on about how Wookieepedia "doesn't bow to outsiders." This wiki doesn't exist for Wookieepedia insiders. We're all fucking fans of Star Wars, and this periodic shit-flinging ends with a lot of bad memories and bad associations with Star Wars. Why and for what and for whom are we busying ourselves by making Star Wars more harmful? Wookieepedia exists to serve everyone and everyone includes trans people. Remove these retrograde thinkers from your leadership. That's the only way forward if you want things to change. NaruHina ^Talk 05:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

    • I did 50 quality edits today as a show of good faith. Striking this vote in order to make it easier for the opposition to win is yet another example of how corrupted this place is, and no—I don't care that ruiz personally supports the measure. Many "qualified" editors have been blocked in order to invalidate their votes simply because they heard about it on Twitter. This is systemic injustice in favor of systemic injustice. NaruHina ^Talk 08:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • And while I'm here—say "I want to deadname them because it is good for my Star Wars website" out loud and see if a dunce cap doesn't fall out of the sky. It's not a reasonable position. It's not a respectable position, which is why I didn't even immediately address it. But I thought about it for about five seconds more just now and I've got a quick question—What about their SEO? When someone searches a trans person online, the trans person deserves to have their past successes actually turn up under their real names. It's not just about your Star Wars website. It's about real people with real careers who Wookieepedia is currently sabotaging with a transphobic policy. NaruHina ^Talk 08:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    StClair (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

    Looks like this might be struck off, but regardless I know enough about trans people to know many are greatly offended by what's known as Deadnaming and a redirect should be sufficient to avoid most potential confusion, so this is how I'm going to vote. -Mr Rinn (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- Imperators II^(Talk) 09:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

31. As someone being in wiki editing for over a year and administrator of Turkish Star Wars wiki, Sithpedi, I am all in support of trans people and their right to use their new names however they like. The problem I have with this consensus is that it's an issue that can be fixed with a simple redirect page and it only became a hot topic because of Wookieepedia's behaviour against trans people now and as well in the past. I will continue to support trans people and their rights even on platforms like this. Moingx (talk)
32. Cumulonimbus Cloud ^(Talk) 13:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    I believe that our previous policy on the matter is outdated and we should move with the times by updating it. Wookieepedia's many policies have evolved over time, often having learned from experiences. Search-engine optimization should not take precedence over transgender people's right to change their name to better reflect who they are. Eddiebox28 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- 1358 ^(Talk) 15:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

    Brules Talk 17:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- 1358 ^(Talk) 17:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

Oppose

1. While this forum's outcome seems steered in one direction already, I'm going to give my argument for why I think this is not the best approach for Wookieepedia. As has already been sort of touched on by some other comments, Wookieepedia's singular goal is to document Star Wars and to document it accurately. Our only responsibility is to our readers. In doing so, our goal should always be to make things as easy to find for our readers as we possibly can within the confines of encyclopedic accuracy. This is why we name real-world person articles according to how they're credited in Star Wars works. Because no one is going to come to Wookieepedia searching for "William December Williams" or "Judy Blundell." To do otherwise would create an unnecessary hurdle for people to find what they're looking for. But more importantly, it affects SEO. Fandom frequently points out for us that the vast majority of people who first discover Wookieepedia do so by way of Google (I would know, I'm one of them), which is why it's so important that we title our articles as accurately as we can with respect to what the majority of people are likely to search for. Now when it comes to the matter of transgender people who have changed their name after being credited in a Star Wars work under a previous name, the same principle holds true. To illustrate this point, take Robin Pronovost, previously known as (removed per request). Anyone who reads one of Pronovost's works and decides to search for that author's name is going to search for "(removed per request)," because that's the name they see in their Star Wars publication, unaware that the author has changed their name to something else. If we leave this article at "Robin Pronovost," it likely hurts our SEO. If that prevents even one person from finding Wookieepedia and the article subject they're looking for, then we've done ourselves and our readers a disservice, and we are no longer serving our purpose. That's a fundamental mistake, and one we should avoid making. We can still be respectful to the the real-world individual and continue to serve our purpose by leaving the article at "(removed per request)" for search optimization while also clearly documenting the name change on the article and making "Robin Pronovost" a redirect. That would be what's best for our readers and also be an accurate documentation of Star Wars publication history while still accommodating the reality of the person's name change. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2. I like this policy and I do not feel we need to modify it or add exceptions simply because of things that happen beyond our Star Wars worldly concerns. If we were referring to IU transgender characters, I'd be all for it but we're talking about OOU people post their work in what we document, which is: Star Wars. Toprawa explains best what my feelings were with the discussion below and I can easily sympathize with what he said here. What should matter to us is the name used to credit their Star Wars contributions. Any name change for any reason can be documented in the article itself, it does not need to reflect in the article's title nor do I think it will offend anyone when this wiki's purpose is clear. Just reflect on this: in a way what this CT supports is the change of article names without any official SW source to support it. And I feel that is wrong and causes a bad precedent. Winterz (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
3. I'm hoping to come across with my intentions clearly here. There is a side of this that cannot be overlooked. This is search engine optimization (SEO), as stated above (I'm having to edit my comment as more users weigh in because I've been spending all morning fine-tuning it). We want our pages to be the top results in Google searches as often as possible, and one thing that helps that tremendously is having the page titled at the name most likely to be searched. With in-universe topics, we default to the most formal name regardless of which name is searched more frequently, but our in-universe articles are so comprehensive that they will usually show up at the top regardless (take this Google search for "thrawn" for instance). That being said, we only cover information relevant to the Star Wars franchise, which puts us at a huge disadvantage against websites like Wikipedia when it comes to real-world people. Because of this, we need every SEO tool available to us. While I'm personally not affected by this policy and the idea of name changes in any way, I do appreciate the struggles of those who are. I do not mean to come off as dismissive when I say that our mission here is to document the history of Star Wars media exclusively, using only official sources. My vote is merely an objective effort to stick to that mission and do what I think is best for Wookieepedia. If anyone would like to message me personally to further discuss this topic, I am more than happy to give and receive more insight, but as this proposal is purely related to article titles, I don't think there's much more I have to say on the matter. I'll end with this: this is a very emotionally charged topic for understandable reasons. Let's all make sure to view things through a purely objective lense, regardless of our position, and realize that nobody in this thread logged on today with the intent to offend or attack others. Let's not assume ill intent where it's not proven. MasterFred(talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
4. There is nothing I would add that has not already been addressed by Tope, Fred and Winterz. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 22:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
5. It would be a disservice to use a person's new name as the article title/url since people would be looking up their former name—the name underwhich the person was credited. Due to SEO and the many other websites on OOU people, there is no guarantee that Wookieepedia would appear in even the first page of search results; that person's Wookieepedia article would virtually disappear from the Internet. On the other hand, using a person's outdated name would allow people to find—and therefore read—Wookieepedia's article on that person. And so long as articles properly reflect reality—as they should regardless of the article title—I see keeping the title at a person's former name as the best solution. (e.g. article title is "(removed per request)," and the article itself reads: "Robin Provonost, formerly (removed per request)…") Keep the person's former name as the article title for the sake of SEO and getting people to read the article in the first place, and have the article itself present the real name for the sake of presenting the facts and providing accurate information for readers. OOM 224 ^{༼༽talk༼༽} 22:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
6. Per Tope. --Liverpool92 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
7. To be honest, I am actually not opposed to changing an article name to whatever a person presently chooses to be called. However, I am opposed to the Orwellian practice of erasing a person's prior name, and this is how it starts. The slippery slope is not a fallacy, no matter how fervently people may proclaim that it is, so the line must be drawn as early as possible. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 00:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
8. My views are much the same as Tope and the others who are opposed to this, but I'll throw in my two cents as well. I realize this is a sensitive topic, but as has been previously stated, this wiki is devoted to the documentation of Star Wars. As such, it is our duty as editors to not only provide accurate info on the galaxy far, far away, but also to ensure that readers can readily access said info. While the topic in question pertains to OOU articles (people, in particular), the world of Star Wars is still what we all are ultimately here for. With that in mind, we want to ensure that readers don't have any difficulty finding a page on an actor, author, etc. with respect to the SW media that they were involved in. I'm certainly not opposed to noting an individual's present identity on their page, but unless they have contributed to a new piece of SW media since that change has occurred in their life, I feel their page name should be left as is. DwartiiDelver (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
9. After an IRC discussion with Tope, I'm switching my vote. I would like to clarify mean no dissrespect to the transgender community, would never intentionally try to hurt someone's feelings, and will always call a person by the name they feel best fits them, but in terms of titling articles we should strive to adhere to policy and make the decision that best serves our readers. Tope pointed out over IRC that some creators will have their deadname only be credited in early works or editions, and all subsequent releases and the like will use their new name, so therefore we can change the title of the article about them as that's the name they will be credited with in most Star Wars medua. However, this is not always the case. A transgender person's current/real name will not always be the name they are creditied with in whatever work they contributed to, so our readers might be searching the old name/deadname instead, and therefore we cannot create a policy requiring that an article name be changed in all cases. Fan26 (Talk) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

   I have nothing but respect for the transgender community, echoing the above message's feelings and thoughts, and no bad intent is being intended by any of us on this side of the vote. This wasn't an easy decision to reach, and specifically echoing Culator's views for how I feel on this, but I think this is the way to go. Lewisr (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

10. I have no intention of offending or hurting anyone, but I share the concerns of Tope, Culator, and the others on this side of the argument. JRT2010 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
11. The article titles should reflect how the actors are credited in the films/shows themselves. Adamwankenobi (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
12. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

    User:DrHolocron\DrHolocron 9talk) 12:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Blocked user -- Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

13. I believe the article titles should reflect whatever name the person used when credited in that work. However, if future editions or publications changed the name, I believe this would be an exception. I believe Wookieepedia tries to closely document Star Wars, and using the names at the time of the publication would be honoring that standard. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• What would be wrong with simply creating the authors new chosen name as a redirect and directing that to the page? Lewisr (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The name that was originally credited is their "dead name"—it is no longer their name, and it can be harmful to use it. It's different from pseudonyms and working names. Immi Thrax (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• This may be a Manual of Style thought, though it's related: I'd like to further suggest we state clearly that trans people's pronouns must be updated as well, and that the MoS re: Gender needs some attention to calling they/them/their a "plural pronoun." Immi Thrax (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Excellent point, we could definitely do with revising that as well. - AV-6R7 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • With respect to individuals who use the pronoun, that makes sense to me. But I don't think that we need to change the use of the pronoun for individuals of unknown gender. VergenceScatter (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I'm suggesting we specifically change the part that calls it a "plural pronoun." I doubt there'd be a consensus to change the policy entirely, but that language rubs me wrong and I suspect does others, too. Immi Thrax (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I see what you mean. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Examples related to pronouns: Eli Baumgartner uses they/them pronouns, Jenny Parks is she/they, Little Corvus is transmasc and they/he, Sara Kipin is she/they; Viv Tanner is nonbinary, but I haven't found pronouns. Immi Thrax (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• To be clear, I'm fully in support of respecting the chosen names of trans individuals; I don't think that should be in question. However, I feel that making a specific exemption for trans people is the wrong way to go about this. It makes more sense, to me, to change the entire policy so that an article is titled after the individual's most recently used professional name. This 1) is more in line with our in-universe policy, and 2) covers examples that the current proposal does not, like non-trans individuals who change their names for other reasons. RattsT (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a good thing I read this comment beforehand because I was about to propose the exact same thing. Anyway, yeah, we should be changing the policy to honor all individuals and not just transgender individuals. Their name changes are just as valid as those who change their name for gender dysphoric reasons. Mr Star Wars AminoRepublic (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The motivation for trans people is often of life-and-death seriousness, which isn't the same as, say, someone who got married and adopted their spouse's name. But yes, other name changes should also be respected, and I would support a more widespread to account for those other instances. Immi Thrax (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
      • A wider policy change is certainly something worth discussing, but there's no reason it can't be done as a separate vote following this one as there are potentially separate issues people might have with a wider policy. I'd recommend voting specifically on this issue since the vote is already happening and then moving forward from there. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Agreed, despite my tangents: we should stick to this initial topic first. Immi Thrax (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Per RattsT. —-Liverpool92 (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• I understand our need to adapt and integrate this however it seems to me that we're creating an exception for something that never happened here in the first place. I remember editing and creating several OOU articles of transgender people but don't recall any not being credited with their chosen name. Can you provide an example of one? Winterz (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Plus, my understanding was that our policy was set so we don't have to run after people's name changes when not related to Star Wars and its products. I respect the transgender community's importance regarding their chosen names but if they've changed their name after collaborating with Star Wars then it's no longer our concern. People's personal lives do not fall under Wookieepedia's purview nor do I understand how can they be offended as in "life-death seriousness" for whatever their Star Wars Wiki article name is, especially since we have this policy set in place. Winterz (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Although the page has recently been moved due to a new paperback release, the Daniel M. Lavery page was kept under his deadname between 2017 and 2020 due to the current policy. This policy would ensure that doesn't happen again in future. No one is forcing anyone to "run after people's name changes" unless you're maintaining a real-person status article, in which case you'd need to be updating the page anyway, but this change means we're not actively preventing the pages from being moved from the deadname. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree that it's not our concern what name people are currently using. If we put someone's former name on an article, it is simply inaccurate, even if they were credited differently, which Tommy pointed out above. Also, even if someone isn't offended with "life-death seriousness," it's still just respectful to use a person's current name, rather than one that they used in the past. VergenceScatter (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• I remember an argument a while back on renaming the Death Star to DS-1 Orbital Battle Station, and the topic of SEO was brought up. Why would something like the "Death Star" or "Jabba the Hutt" be moved to more obscure names like the DS-1 Orbital Battle Station and Jabba Desilijic Tiure that doesn't help with SEO? Yes, SEO is very important, but it shouldn't dictate article names. Billy Dee Williams and Jude Watson chose to go by those names in the work that they are credited for, whether as transgender individuals did not. Redirects and appropriate links should make this a non-issue in my opinion. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 21:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I published this comment before I refreshed and read Fred's above statement, which does cover my concerns regarding SEO and redirects accurately. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 21:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Considering we'll be changing article names without official sources, I have to ask this: how will we determine who is transgender and what is an acceptable source to back that fact? Winterz (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • We can source it to social media or other verifiable non-Star Wars sources, as we do for many things like birth date, death date etc. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Some relevant stuff regarding use of names, will come back with some other style guides' guidances. Immi Thrax (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • GLAAD Media Reference Guide - In Focus: Covering the Transgender Community: "When a transgender person's birth name is used in a story, the implication is almost always that this is the person's 'real name.' But in fact, a transgender person's chosen name is their real name, whether or not they are able to obtain a court-ordered name change. Many people use names they have chosen for themselves, and the media does not mention their birth name when writing about them, (e.g., Lady Gaga, Demi Moore, Whoopi Goldberg). Transgender people should be accorded the same respect. When writing about a transgender person's chosen name, do not say "she wants to be called," "she calls herself," "she goes by Susan," or other phrases that cast doubt on a transgender person's identity."
  • The Flare: What Is Deadnaming and Why is It Harmful?: "In some instances, as in Elliot Page's case, the issue is complicated by the fact that they were in the public eye prior to their transition and became well known by their previous name. Following their transition, people may be tempted to refer to them by their former name in order to identify them in context of their previous work. But, as many have pointed out online, even saying 'the actor formerly known as...' is a form of deadnaming, and there are other ways of identifying a person, such as referencing the titles of their former work, rather than using their deadname." Immi Thrax (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • AP Stylebook 2019: "Identify people as transgender only if pertinent, and use the name by which they live publicly." [...] "Use the name by which a transgender person now lives: Caitlyn Jenner. Refer to a previous name only if relevant to the story: Caitlyn Jenner, who won a 1976 Olympic gold medal in decathlon as Bruce Jenner." [...] "Name changes: In general, use the name by which a person currently lives or is widely known. Include a previous name or names only if relevant to story." Immi Thrax (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting that Robin Pronovost has specifically asked to not be deadnamed, as seen here on their website which has been updated since earlier today. Immi Thrax (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • To highlight an interwiki example, TARDIS wiki's policy is pretty darn good:

"This [naming] policy obviously also extends to trans people, whose stated names and pronouns should be used in all cases, even when originally credited under a deadname (name assigned at birth, and since renounced — is not to be used under any circumstances to actually refer to someone who has changed their name to reflect gender identity.). In other words, the most recent name and pronouns are always to be used, even when at odds with past credits.

"Footnotes may be added, where necessary, simply suggesting that they were credited under a different name at the time. In infoboxes, past credits in which a deadname was originally used should effectively treated as mistaken, in favour of self-designation." Immi Thrax (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't consensus considered to be reached once there is over 20 votes in favor? JMM (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A vote can only be curb-stomped with 20-0 support, not simply 20 supports. Tommy-Macaroni 13:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • And no less than five days after the opening of the vote, too. Imperators II^(Talk) 13:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, I got it. I forgot it had to be 20 to nothing! JMM (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Even if someone was to worry about people searching and not finding someone's formerly used name, doesn't a redirect page cover that well enough? The previous name still exists on the site, and then redirects to the proper name. Not completely sure how "SEO" works, but both names would still be found on the site. JMM (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the concern is for people who aren't searching on the wiki, but rather using Google or a similar search engine. MasterFred(talk) 16:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    • For those that are primarily concerned with SEO, do you have data on how redirects versus article titles affect rankings? Or how often people find articles based on an exact search for a first + last name with no other search terms, rather than a work title + last name? Robin, for instance, has not changed their surname from how they were previously credited. It seems like the SEO argument is, at the moment, hypothetical rather than evidence-based, whereas the harms of deadnaming are well-documented. Immi Thrax (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Since people would generally search for the name underwhich a person was credited, having that name as the article title would help search engines match a users' search with the corresponding Wookieepedia article. For Google, the search engine first establishes the meaning of the user's query. However, while Google uses a synonym system to adjust findings, "Robin" wouldn't count as a synonym for "(removed per request)," and so people searching for "(removed per request)" would have more difficulty accessing the Robin Pronovost article. The Google algorithm then determines the relevance of webpages. As said in the second google.com link, (see under the heading "Relevance of webpages") a webpage is more likely to be relevant if it includes the subject of the user's query in the page title, headings, and text. This proves a problem for people searching for "(removed per request)" when the Wookieepedia article is at "Robin." On to examples: (1 - chosen name) a Google search for (removed per request) currently lists Wookieepedia in third place, under a slide of images. In the instance of a minor typo, like (removed per request) removing the "t" at the end], and the first five pages (I only checked the first five pages) would not not list Wookieepedia. (2 - credited name) a Google search for "Jude Watson" currently lists Wookieepedia as the second result, immediately under Wikipedia. However, search for "Judy Blundell" and Wookieepedia appears only at the very bottom of page four of the search results. It's quite clear that having the title at the credited name—what people would commonly search for—would significantly boost Wookieepedia up the top of SEO rankings from obscurity. Also, this policy affects all name changes regarding transgender individuals, so this isn't simply concerning first name changes as is the case with Robin Pronovost, who kept their surname. To conclude, I again stress that keeping the article title at the credited name is the best option since it really, really helps people actually reach the Wookieepedia article. And when people do reach the article, they'll read its actual contents, which would state the credited name—for clarity for readers and to reflect published Star Wars material—and, crucially, also use the individual's chosen name to reflect reality. OOM 224 ^{༼༽talk༼༽} 23:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • What you've said is true OOM, but the truth is that very few people, if any, are making those searches. I've spoken to Brandon Rhea who in turn reached out to Fandom's SEO team to see what the impact on SEO would be if this policy passes and their team was unable to even generate an SEO trend because there's so little data to go off in terms of historical searches for these terms. As such the risk of us losing potential readers over this isssue is negligble at best. It's also worth noting that searching "Judy Blundell Wookieepedia" or "Judy Blundell Star Wars" brings up our Jude Watson page first. Brandon further clarified: "A lot of the thinking on SEO tends to be on how search trends can impact a site’s authority, but the other side of that is how a site’s authority can impact search trends. Google trusts Wookieepedia, so the existence of a redirect is a powerful tool in terms of maintaining page authority. I used to argue that I thought naming the Death Star as the DS-1 Death Star Mobile Battle Station or naming Darth Maul as Maul would be harmful, but I was wrong about that because I wasn’t taking Wookieepedia’s built-in authority into account. That’s why if you Google Death Star, DS-1 Death Star Mobile Battle Station is the 2nd result (second only to the page literally called Death Star). And why if you Google Darth Maul, Maul is the #1 result." Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't view the deadnames as any different than listing that Woody Allen was born Allan Stewart Konigsberg. Purely objectively, changed names have always had the previous names officially documented too. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I've just become aware of something drastically important to this discussion: as written in the "Personal information belonging to other people" section of our privacy policy: "Disclosing personal information of another person without their explicit and public consent is forbidden, whether on the site, in public Wookieepedia IRC channels, or within other site climes. Violation will result in standard application of the blocking policy at the discretion of the administrator who discovers the violation, and deletion of said personal information." The emphasis here is not my own; this wording has been used since the policy was first implemented in 2007. Under these rules, the act of deadnaming is explicitly prohibited, and should never have been allowed to begin with. Those in opposition of this proposal are campaigning against long established policy that seeks to protect the privacy of individuals. Therefore, this proposal should not even be necessary, as its goal should already be ensured by our privacy policy. RattsT (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm only taking the time to respond to this because it's that ridiculous and no one should ever labor under the delusion that anything you've said here is accurate. The intention of the Privacy policy clause that you're poorly attempting to weaponize here applies to cases known as doxxing, where someone publicly reveals someone's private and otherwise unknown information. Obviously, this would never apply to a case where someone's deadname is public and well-documented information or otherwise a case of basic encyclopedic documentation. Attempting to paint everyone who disagrees with you in this vote as violating policy -- nice try, but no. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • This comes across really rude, to be frank. You can disagree with RattsT's reading of the rules without claiming they're delusional or that anyone that agrees with them is. It also ignores that multiple journalistic style guides have set guidelines on deadname use, as well as that many trans people--even those who have transitioned publicly--specifically want their deadnames to be left off of credits and to remain private (or at least unused). While I understand why there'd be a bit of a question here since their deadnames are public knowledge because of old creative works, major resources like the AP Style Guide, APA's style guide, and Oxford, all dictate that people's current names should be used. Reading the Wookieepedia policy through that lens is by no means delusional, and coming at it from that perspective strikes me as particularly antagonistic. Tinyhipsterboy (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like I have to explain why I support making this change. From what I basically see, the opposition to this CT is boiled down to SEO. Never have I seen such an interest in SEO than I have here. There was never this kind of argument in support for SEO in terms of the in-universe naming policy, which many have attributed it do being different than the credited work of a contributor, which I don't agree with. After updating Robin Pronovost, (and I'm sorry to use them as an example), to include their former name, the Robin article popped up on the 1st page of Google when searching their deadname within the next two days. Additionally, we will by default have more instances of people searching for their Star Wars work under their name, Robin, rather than their deadname, because of social media. The opposition is strong for the reason that if someone searched the deadname and can't find it, then we lose a reader. How about all the readers we lose by not making this change? I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen the social media controversy surrounding Wookieepedia now. Why would we favor the person who is searching for some contributor and who might not even exist versus an entire community of readers? We gain 1 and lose hundreds. Additionally, I'm sure that many people here have searched something on Google only to not find what they were looking for, only to search a second time with a reworded search. Searching the former name/deadname of Robin followed by "Star Wars" on the Google search bar places our Wookieepedia article at the very top, simply because the second search added "Star Wars" to the original search. Even then, Ayrehead has confirmed that there isn't even enough SE data to determine that there are individuals searching for these current deadnames on our transgender articles. So not only are we alienating a community of our readers, but we're alienating them for searchers who don't even necessarily exist. A simple redirect is sufficient for SEO for Wookieepedia. I graduated with a Bachelor's in Business Admin with Marketing, and I've studied Search Engine Optimization as part of my curriculum. This extreme attention and focus on SEO now on this subject but not on our in-universe articles is hypocritical. If a book only says the Death Star and there's no other source for the name except DS-1 Death Star Mobile Battle Station, and then also credits the deadname of an author, why would we say it's okay for us to have the article at DS-1 Death Star Mobile Battle Station and not change the name of the author to their current name? Especially when no one is even searching for their deadname? --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 05:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • One other thing, if an individual searching for the name of the contributor can't find their Wookieepedia article on the first page on Google, not only can they simply write "Star Wars" after the name to find the Wookieepedia article on the top mentions, but they can also search up the novel or work of the contributor in question, which will undoubtedly also lead them to Wookieepedia. I don't know anyone or know of anyone who gives up a Google search after one unsuccessful attempt (even if they don't bother going to the second page on Google). --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 06:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't really feel like worrying about SEO is as important as not being offensive towards specific people who have pages as well as readers who are offended that deadnames are used. I do not consider myself a very educated person when it comes to deadnames or other issues in this realm but I think not using deadnames is the right thing to do. Wok142 (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• I actually considered changing my vote to support this proposal as ecks and some others make strong points. However after seeing supporting elements trying to turn this into a political matter and forcing outside attention, I will stand by my vote, even if it doesn't make much difference regarding the outcome. It's a disgrace that this was brought into social media. It shows an ill intention towards our public image and it disrespects editors who helped build this encyclopedia. This is a Wookieepedia matter, and there's a reason why our policy only allows active editors to vote in policy change (or in any vote). You should know this, but the Wook doesn't bow to outsider protests. Winterz (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's particularly important to point out that Wookieepedia is a huge resource that, as covered on this very page, is trusted by Google and comes up as some of the top search results for multiple Star Wars searches. This isn't something that is just for Wookieepedia editors--it's something that can impact anyone that visits the site. Painting this as people "turning it into a political matter" comes across as particularly weird to me considering the very existence of trans people is a political matter in our society. When stuff went down over at Memory Alpha, users that don't edit often (including myself) were painted as outside actors that had no stake in the situation, but that completely ignores how widespread resources like Wookieepedia are. I said it during the MA kerfuffle, and I'll say it here too--while I'm not a regular contributor, I've been a reader of Wookieepedia for years by this point. My chiming in as a queer person doesn't show ill intention just because I don't edit often. Throughout this page, I'm seeing insistence that all of this is only intended for hardcore fans who do the work to build Wookieepedia, but right next to that, there's plenty of insistence that this is about SEO for a site that even Google trusts and brings up as major results for Star Wars search terms. It can't be both ways: is this a resource made by and for (and impacts) a small subset of fans, or is this a resource made by fans that has a large reach and can impact thousands of users that enter a Star Wars search inquiry?
    • I understand wanting to make sure situations like this aren't bombed by a ton of people with no stake in the situation, but on a site as widely known as Wookieepedia, it seems unrealistic to dismiss the opinions of people who might be affected even if they're not hardcore long-time contributors, you know? If ecks (et al) make strong points that you understand and agree with, why not go with those? While people who regularly contribute to a wiki like this comprise a relatively small community, the fact of the matter is, Wookieepedia has a larger reach than just those people. I think it's valuable to take outside input into account in the face of that. While social media can certainly lead to brigading from people who have no stake in things, discussing things on social media is the entire purpose of social media itself. It can just as easily indicate that there are Star Wars fans that would be impacted by policies like this. Not every Star Wars fan that uses the site makes edits, but this site is for more than just editors. Tinyhipsterboy (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As far as I understand the situation, no one "brought" this into social media. As per the block reasonings, fellow editors were blocked for interacting with a certain tweet of someone who already discovered this CT. I'm not at all surprised that after 2 weeks, at least one of the thousands of daily readers we get would notice this vital policy proposal, in fact I was extremely worried about this happening and had stated so privately that one of my reasons for supporting this in a Wookieepedia-related sense was because our public perception would be completely damaged if we didn't pass this. Accusing fellow editors of turning something political when it was already political from the moment the CT was made because of the subject it covers and accusing them of ill intentions for disrespecting editors and tarnishing public image is too much of a reach in my opinion. I think the sockpuppetry clause needs to be updated with wording because retweeting something online doesn't really seem like it's "recruiting friends." And yes, this is a Wookieepedia matter, which not only affects our articles but our community and our readers. With that said, I'm considering a temporarily leave from Wookieepedia. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 14:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Relax Vitus, I did not accuse any editor and I certainly should not, as that would be a personal attack and a breach of policy. I specifically said "supporting elements". Winterz (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clearing that up, Winterz, and I apologize for taking parts of your comment under a different light than you intended. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 14:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree. If we ignore the any outside input we only make our community more of a bubble and also make us partly (or entirely) ignorant to our audience, which I believe is more than just hardcore Star Wars fans. While some on Twitter may make false assumptions about us and twist some users' intentions to call it transphobia, it should also be noted that there are individuals from minority groups, like the trans community, that could feel unwelcome here if this vote favours the opposition (the reason for being best explained by Tommy's voting statement in my opinion) whether we like it or not. I believe this amendment is a sign of progression and a step in the right direction. Braha'tok enthusiast ^{(Hello there)} 14:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting eligible, but I should point out that trans people and trans allies are not trying to 'turn it into a political matter'. It's anti-trans people who want to turn our existence (I'm trans) and matters of basic respect into a political debate. We just want to live without being harassed, without dying, without being deadnamed and misgendered, that's not politics for goodness sake, that's life! I haven't ever edited the wiki but I used it as a source of information on all matters Star Wars for years, and I really hope Wookieepedia does the right thing and doesn't choose to disrespect transgender creators. It's not political, it's just respect.Shinobody (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly I'm apparently not eligible despite having heavily contributed when the new canon was in its infancy, but I want to say the notion this couldn't have been a "political matter" is laughable when everything is political, and ironic in the context of a franchise about good vs. evil, war, martial arts, and politicking. Anyway, it shouldn't have taken an updated edition of From A Certain Point of View for the site to finally settle on using Daniel M. Lavery's actual name. Alientraveller (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • As someone who is an admin on a wiki that just had a similar issue crop up, I gotta say this is kind of... gross? This wiki values its SEO over the thoughts and feelings and experiences of the people who made this wiki so relevant in the first place: the canon creators. There are a number of points and arguments that basically boil down to "we aren't going to do what is best for the people who created Star Wars because it might mean we're number 2 in the search results instead of number 1". And you know what this attitude is going to do? Alienate the entire Wiki because people will absolutely 100% refuse to use this wiki if it becomes known, or even perceived to be known, as being transphobic. And given that you have an entire thread on "huh should we follow the wishes of an LGBT+ indivudual who contributed to the franchise or should we care more about SEO than them?", believe you me that there are many dozens of people who will not stand for that. It is transphobic, and the fact is that there are a number of ways around this obstacle but they don't seem to be getting any attention. Do I know Lana Wachowski's deadname? Not at all. Do I know her actual name? Yes. Why? Because people, especially people in the positions to be doing good and spreading the word of 'hey we don't call them that anymore" made it so that her deadname literally faded from that knowledge. Of course people still know it, and some people still use it. But I bet they get weird looks because no one uses that name anymore. It's outdated. Do you wanna be outdated? Judging by your desperation to be number 1, I wouldn't have thought so. You are in a really good position, because of your SEO, to make a stand and say "yeah they used to be called this but actually it's wrong - use this name instead". And I really hope that's the outcome of this. I really do. {{SUBST:User:Fruipit/Sig}} 05:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• If, as claimed, this policy is about managing how this site appears in search engines, I have very bad news for you about what the result of this is going to be. StClair (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Decision From Fandom

Hello,

Fandom's company values are simple: We Serve a Global Community, We Build Experiences, and We Bring Joy. By serving a global community, we build connections with fans and creators, including wiki editors, grounded in an active effort of inclusion. By building experiences, we strive to imagine what a great community platform can be, constantly seek to improve upon that, and deliver solutions to our audience for how to be an active part of that. And by bringing joy, we celebrate our fandoms, like Star Wars, which brings with it positive inclusion of all fans.

As part of that, last year we made sure that we were stating a clear commitment to the transgender community by updating our Terms of Use to ban transphobic content and transphobic behavior. This was already something we did if people were outright transphobic, but it was important to codify so we could put a clear stake in the ground. Trans rights are human rights and we have a commitment to make sure that members of the transgender community are treated with compassion, dignity, and respect on Fandom.

With the creation of our Community Safety team, we have an opportunity to lead on an evolving topic in society at large. That's why we've been actively monitoring this conversation over the last week, including working with members of Wookieepedia's administration knowing that there are a lot of opinions involved here.

Having reviewed the situation, and in keeping with the evolving understanding of these issues, Fandom has determined that, while it may not have been the intention, knowingly using a deadname in an article title is a violation of our Terms of Use. This is a global determination, meaning it applies to all wikis—including Wookieepedia. Since this supersedes local policies, this vote should be closed and policies should be updated to reflect the Terms of Use. The policy proposal here fits with our Terms of Use. Returning to the previous status quo (deferring to credits despite someone stating what their chosen name is) does not.

As part of this decision, and as we’ve reviewed the situation over the last few days, we have also decided to remove the bans of CooperTFN, DrHolocron, Cwedin, AV-6R7, and Immi Thrax. These bans, which were issued by the Wookieepedia administration, are the result of a tweet that CooperTFN sent out (from @Eleven-ThirtyEight) and that the other four then interacted with. It seems clear from the context of CooperTFN's initial tweet and follow-ups that he believed he was making a good faith effort to encourage people to vote only if they were eligible to do so, not to recruit single-issue voters. We can assume that the others felt the same, especially since they were all editors in good standing—one of whom was even nominated to be April's Wookieepedian of the Month.

This is a hyper-charged situation, so we believe that those acting in good faith should be able to get a clean slate given that the vote is moot.

This is a final decision and Fandom staff will not be participating in a debate here or elsewhere right now. We will be discussing the topic of content related to the transgender community in greater detail with the Fandom community at large in the near future. We are committed to working with our community, internal teams, and outside experts to build a comprehensive framework to help guide our communities on how to properly create content relating to both fictional characters and real-life individuals who do not fit into outmoded definitions of identity and gender. Our goal is to provide an educational and growth framework for those who do not have real-life experience in these topics but want to learn more about creating inclusive content.

Our communities often spend much time debating the nuance of canon or the particulars of a given content policy, but we must also be willing to engage in challenging conversations about the nuance of external factors surrounding these topics. To that end, when wiki content is talking about real human beings with real needs, they must be respected.

I reiterate that this is a final decision as it relates to Wookieepedia. We will share more information about this framework soon.- TimmyQuivy (help forum | blog) 18:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)