Forum:CT:Naming policy amendments: Books

Forums > Consensus track > CT:Naming policy amendments: Books

Book series

As you know, we have formalized rules for how to name articles on individual books, found under the "Novels and books" section of the Naming policy. This primarily covers when and when not to include the "Star Wars" prefix in the article title. But one related area we have not yet covered is articles for book series.

By and large, our articles for book series do not currently include the "Star Wars" prefix, which I assume was done originally to follow the naming convention for individual books. The basic rationale there being that in-universe narrative print works like books and comics may omit the prefix for the sake of the Appearances list, because they're so numerous, it's redundant, and it makes for very long and unwieldy titles.

However, that rationale need not apply to book series because these articles are not listed in the Appearances list. More importantly, we strive to use the most complete, formal names for article titles whenever appropriate. And finally, it is our convention to include the "Star Wars" prefix in the article title for series and projects; some of the most prominent examples include Star Wars: Droids: The Adventures of R2-D2 and C-3PO, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, Star Wars: Clone Wars, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. The same practice, then, should extend to book series.

I am therefore proposing that we do include the "Star Wars" prefix for articles on book series. Not only does this follow our convention for series and projects, but it reflects how the publishers and even Lucasfilm formally refer to these subjects. A look at the Penguin Random House site (this is basically the corporate umbrella name for Del Rey, Bantam Books, Ballantine Books, Random House, and everything in between) shows that "Star Wars" is consistently included in the name for both Canon and Legends series. Some examples:

• Star Wars: X-Wing
• Star Wars: The New Jedi Order
• Star Wars: Legacy of the Force
• Star Wars: Fate of the Jedi
• Star Wars: The Aftermath Trilogy

Even Lucasfilm shows here that "Star Wars" should formally be included in series names, even if the series name may colloquially and more frequently be used without it. See where the text refers to the "Star Wars: Adventures in Wild Space series." Also observe the use of the prefix in logos for past Legends series: Star Wars: The New Jedi Order, Star Wars: Legacy of the Force, and Star Wars: Fate of the Jedi. Yet another example can be found for the Star Wars: Coruscant Nights series in the author blurb of the Patterns of the Force paperback: "Reaves is the New York Times bestselling author of the Star Wars: Coruscant Nights novels Jedi Twilight and Street of Shadows..."

As an added bonus to doing this, we will avoid potential naming conflicts between series name and individual title name. An example right now is the Join the Resistance series and that series' first book, also called Join the Resistance, currently at the title Join the Resistance (first book). The natural thing to do is to move the series name to Star Wars: Join the Resistance and move the first book to Join the Resistance, avoiding silly parenthetical descriptors like "first book."

Under this proposal, everything currently in the "Novels and books" section of the Naming policy will be divided under a new subsection title called "Individual works," while a new subsection will be created below that, titled "Series." That section will read:

Do include the "Star Wars" prefix in the article titles of novel and book series (examples: Star Wars: The Thrawn Trilogy, Star Wars: Fate of the Jedi, Star Wars: The Aftermath Trilogy, Star Wars: Adventures in Wild Space).

All applicable articles will then be moved to reflect this change. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:02, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Support

1. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:02, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
2. Exiled Jedi (talk) 22:13, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
3. Imperators II^(Talk) 06:59, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
4. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 07:03, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
5. For the sake of consistency with other online sources. Andykatib 07:04, March 19, 2019 (UTC)
6. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 11:52, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
7. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 14:22, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
8. Cevan (talk) 20:17, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:12, March 20, 2017 (UTC)
10. Yep, 'tis good. MasterFred^(Whatever) 21:54, March 20, 2017 (UTC)
11. Cwedin^(talk) 21:59, March 20, 2017 (UTC)
12. 1358 ^(Talk) 00:13, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
13. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:20, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. See discussion below for rationale. Asithol (talk) 22:45, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a Star Wars wiki. The prefix "Star Wars" is redundant on pretty much every article on which it appears.

Lucasfilm and publishing houses have every reason to include the Star Wars prefix: it's a branding mechanism for them. But every page of Wookieepedia clearly identifies this site as a project about Star Wars. Adding it to our article names provides no useful information, and makes article names longer and clunkier than they need to be.

Furthermore, many editors are in the habit of using full titles in running text, rather than pipelinking down to the essential part of the title. (That is, to use a film example, you're more likely to see "In Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader reveals..." than the more streamlined "In The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader reveals....") This already clutters the flow of many Behind the scenes sections, where a paragraph comparing or contrasting several sources may have so many unwieldy titles near each other that the point of the paragraph gets lost in the noise of pointless prefixes.

Yes, better use of pipelinking would address this, and if there were a compelling reason to prefix more article names with "Star Wars," this objection wouldn't stand on its own. But ultimately, every decision we make here should come down to a simple question: what best serves our readers? You can make a case that Star Wars: The New Jedi Order is the more correct series title than The New Jedi Order. But does it help readers to include the redundant "Star Wars" in the article name? Is there any reader confusion that results from leaving it out? I just don't see what it adds.

I agree that consistency with our article names for other series would be nice, but such consistency should be achieved by eliminating a redundant prefix in more cases, not adding it to more. Asithol (talk) 22:45, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Novelizations

While we're on the topic of book naming standardization, I thought this would also be a good opportunity to revise another related matter. When we name articles for novels that conflict with other subjects, our policy-supported convention is to disambiguate by using "(novel)"; example, Death Star (novel). While this practice is good, it's not really perfectly accurate for books that are novelizations, as a novelization, to quote Wikipedia, "is a derivative novel that adapts the story of a work created for another medium, such as a film, TV series, comic strip or video game." A novelization has a particularly different quality than a normal novel, and our article naming should reflect this.

I am therefore proposing the following change to the Naming policy. The first paragraph of the "Literary works" section (linked in the preceding paragraph), will now read:

Use the title of the work as the article's name. To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)," "(comic)," or "(short story)." Articles may use "(book)" to disambiguate a non-fiction book. For novelizations, such as film novelizations or junior film novelizations, use either "(novelization)" or "(junior novelization)" as appropriate.

Our junior film novelization articles already follow this convention. Our film novelization articles and any other examples will be moved accordingly. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:02, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Support

1. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:02, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
2. Exiled Jedi (talk) 22:13, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
3. Imperators II^(Talk) 06:59, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
4. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 07:03, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
5. Andykatib 07:05, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
6. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 11:52, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
7. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 14:22, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
8. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:14, March 20, 2017 (UTC)
9. Also gud. MasterFred^(Whatever) 21:54, March 20, 2017 (UTC)
10. Cwedin^(talk) 21:59, March 20, 2017 (UTC)
11. Asithol (talk) 22:45, March 20, 2017 (UTC)
12. 1358 ^(Talk) 00:13, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
13. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:20, March 21, 2017 (UTC)