Talk:Arrow season 1/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Arrow season 1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Draft

Content previously hosted in this article has been moven to the draft Draft:Arrow (season 1) pending extension of its content.Oraklebat (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

First name or last name?

Continuation of this talk: User talk:Bignole#Arrow (season 1) --HamedH94 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Bignole, you continue to defend your position without mentioning any guideline or even an essay to support it. What do you mean by "it's just an essay"? It is a manual of style that should be followed, something that people knowing much more than you and me have designated in order to make WP exemplary, an idealism that all users should stick to. WP isn't based on common law. The existence of deviation from the manual of style in other articles doesn't mean that they should remain that way. Users and guests are encouraged to correct them. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a manual of style meant for real world perspective writing. When writing in-universe, which is really only EVER done in a plot summary itself, it is best practice to use the common name of the character. Otherwise, you could confuse readers as to why you keep referring to Jason Voorhees as "Voorhees", when he's never called that in any film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, in-universe perspective is discouraged, see MOS:INUNIVERSE. You continue to enforce your personal opinions without citing any WP essay or policy. Every reader has either watched the previous episodes and knows the characters; or he only reads the summaries of every episode; and every character is mentioned by both first and last names in the first mention. Plus, there is a Cast and Characters section in which almost all of the important characters are mentioned by both first and last names; and if you believe it is incomplete, feel free to improve it. So there is no need to worry about the confusion of the reader. And again, it doesn't matter what people are called in the work of fiction; because this is a formal encyclopedia and the same manual is applied to fictional works, see WP:CYF.--HamedH94 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

When we write episode summaries we have to write in-universe because we are documenting individual episodes, which are primary sources. Therefore, per WP:PRIMARY, we have to reflect the primary source. We aren't allowed to interpret it. That means, if the person is called "Walter" in the source, that's what we have to call him. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Who' said we have to? Take a look at Captain America: Civil War and you'll see how it's possible. Primary sources are obviously used for the plot section; but where do you extract "that's what we have to call him" from? Who says choosing between first and last names is an interpretation of the plot? It's about the manual of style. HamedH94 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your example is of a film series where the characters are generally well known by their full name. Again, not what happens with Friday the 13th, as no one calls him "Voorhees" formally. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your position is that "we should mention the characters the way they are usually called in the fictional work's script"; but why? According to who or what? You don't present any guideline or essay to support it. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And your guideline is speaking about writing articles from a real world perspective, not about plot summaries. In this case, it one of the few times I would actually advocate for WP:IAR, as we're not dealing with a policy, nor are we dealing with an entire article written in a non-formal tone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We should still be writing plot summaries from a real world perspective, as much as we can. For instance, we explain aspects of fictional worlds and characters in easy-to-understand ways for our readers. And for the most part, writing a good encyclopaedic article from a real world perspective should naturally involve common, formal techniques such as generally referring to people by their last name. One thing with a show like this is that, admittedly, it has a lot of family members, and so for disambiguation purposes using first names may often be required. But when it isn't, last names should be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, WP:IAR is for when someone wants to improve WP in order to achieve its main five goals, first of which is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", not a fans blog. So IAR isn't something that can be used for any purpose. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure you can classify writing a plot with a character's first name (which is the most common usage for the character) the same as writing a fan blog. Actually, the five core goals has one specific one that would be relevant: " Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about exceptions. There are thousands of fictional work articles and this dispute is nothing new. See this Speaking of principles, we should remember that Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia; which means it should not include colloquialism unless something like a quotation is mentioned. THAT is what is meant by exceptions, not doing whatever you want, wherever you want. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Who says choosing between first and last names is an interpretation of the plot? It's about the manual of style. - What part of the manual of style says we should use last names? MOS:PLOT says "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work." Looking at your latest edit, it is not obvious from the episode that Smoak=Felicity. We have to write for all of our readers, and while it may be obvious to a fan that Felicity's last name is "Smoak", it's not going to be obvious to a casual reader/viewer that is the case. If we follow MOS:PLOT and write "an obvious recap" of an episode, we have to use Felicity, not Smoak, because that is how she is generally referred to. We shouldn't be confusing our readers by using less common names. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If person A isn't familiar with the franchise and is only a reader, then how can Felicity be more obvious to them than Smoak? When a character is mentioned for the first time in a section, both first and last names are used for disambiguation. If any ambiguity remains, remember that there is a distinct section where all important characters are mentioned with full names. Looks like there is someone needed to define the meanings of words like interpretation and obvious!--HamedH94 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the person being "only a reader", I said "casual reader/viewer". A causual reader/viewer might watch an episode and come here to find out more information, or seek clarification about something that happened in an episode, and will be confused because "Felicity" was used in the episode but you've called her "Smoak".

When a character is mentioned for the first time in a section, both first and last names are used for disambiguation. If any ambiguity remains, remember that there is a distinct section where all important characters are mentioned with full names. - Why force a confused reader to have to look elsewhere? The episode summary should, per MOS:PLOT, present an "obvious recap of the work", and an obvious recap reports what happens in the episode in such a way as everything is obvious, and that means using the name used in the episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Who's stupid enough to think they can watch a series from the middle and understand the story? They need to watch from the beginning or at least read all the episodes. If the casual reader can't bother taking a glimpse at the characters section, then perhaps they're too comfortable to be satisfied with anything. Plus MOS:PLOT talks about the whole plot section, not every episode. It's obvious that there are plot twists which the casual reader needs to know in order to understand the episode; and it's also obvious that we can't repeat the previous twists in newer episodes. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people will happen to catch a single episode of a series and then read up on it to find out more. It doesn't mean that they are stupid to do so. Wikipedia comes first in a lot of searches, so they end up here, rather than at other sites, and usually read the summary for the episode that they've seen, because that is what they are most interested in. We often see people on talk pages who have clearly come down that path. We shouldn't confuse readers when they first visit, or they are unlikely to return. If they want to find out more then they go to the characters section. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If the guy prefers WP, then he is almost 100% familiar with it and knows how not to get confused. Now what about that minus one percent?!! We're talking about a ten thousandth of the popolation and you're trying to make everyone happy, a utopia. How heroic!!! --HamedH94 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read what is written. Noody said anything about anyone preferring Wkilpedia. I said "Wikipedia comes first in a lot of searches", meaning that if you search on Google or other search engines, Wikipedia pages often come up first, and occasionally second. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

same thing. that means most searchers have experienced WP articles before, thanks to Google, and know how to handle their confusions. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not the same thing at all and you are making wild statements that have no basis in fact. Just because somebody comes here because of a search result doesn't mean they know how Wikipedia articles work. We have some ( a lot actually) editors who don't know how Wikipedia works. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

When a reader chooses WP in the search results of Google, it means they DO have experience working with WP. Is it so difficult to understand? --HamedH94 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Not at all. That's just a wild assumption. It's far more likely that, since WP is first, or because everyone seems to talk about it these days, it's seen as being more reliable. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The reader isn't a time traveler from the middle ages. They know what a webpage is and how to find what they're looking for. If their friends suggest WP to them, they can surely guide them how to use it and not get confused. --HamedH94 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You're now on a different tack altogether. Your original argument was "If the guy prefers WP". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You should comment on content, not the contributor. See this. --HamedH94 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That was commenting on content. Your original argument was "If the guy prefers WP" but you have now changed tack. This sub-thread seems to be at an end. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's you who's changed the argument in a gradual way. You keep commenting phrases irrelevant to the topic. Remember that Wikipedia isn't about winning. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend, it makes more sense to refer to them by their first name if that's what's used in the episode. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The "Arrowverse" in Wikipedia also uses first names. I think "in universe" use in WP is to limit describing characters or events as if the reader is there in the show. This does not include common names used therein. For example, Temperance "Bones" Brennan is hardly ever called the former two, she's either "Brennan" or "Dr Brennan". That show has been on for 11 (soon to be 12) seasons; I've seen maybe two episodes and know what she is still called. If anyone in the real world was talking about a "Temperance", I would ask "who?" It's how a name is frequently used in a show or film to convey to the article visitors, not what is by-the-book Wikipedically correct. — Wylie pedia 13:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
We should go with what the character is commonly called to avoid confusion in reading about the character and who is being referred to. I am passingly familiar with this show a and not deep into the characters backstory and would be stopped cold going "huh?" if I saw "Felicity" referred to in descriptions as "Smoak". We need to write for the reader and uncommon names create confusion. I looked at other fictional works and generally the common name is what is used. Don't see "Snow White" referred to as "White", or "Tinker Bell" referred to as "Bell". These are works of fiction and Wikipedia policies and style guidelines and essays about real-person biographies are reasonable starting points on how to describe and refer to fictional characters given no other considerations but we need to remember that we are primarily trying to effectively communicate information to a reader and using uncommon names is a roadblock to that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Like I said before, WP isn't based on common law. If the mistake exists in other similar articles, it doesn't mean that we should apply it in this one too. If I have the chance, I will correct those too, because WP has guidelines that support it. There is nothing in guidelines that supports the phrase "We should mention the characters the way they are usually called in fiction", while this one says that colloquialism is discouraged, this one says that in-universe perspective is not suggested, and this one says that the advice about factual articles applies to articles about fiction. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking about the law, common or otherwise. Using the name in an episode summary that was used in the episode is not using a colloquialism. As for WP:CYF, in episode summaries we are only summarising the plot of an episode. There should be no attempt to treat it from a real-world perspective, nor should there be, other than to ensure the correct tone, spelling and grammar is used. Real-world treatment is provided if an episode is notable enough to warrant an individual article, and then it is not provided in the plot section. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed colloquialism because it is a script, which should contain colloquial talk when characters are in a normal conversation. But WP isn't about scripst and is an encyclopedia and should meet the standards. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No, using someone's name is not using a colloquialism. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at the last paragraph of the first section. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't support your claim at all. The name on a birth certificate is a formal name. Using your first name to refer to you does not make it a colloquialism. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

it doesn't change the fact that mentioning people by their first names is a mark of intimacy and company, distancing it from formal tone, which is used by politicians for example. have you heard Obama mention Kerry as John in a press conference? that's what is meant by formal tone; and according to this, all articles should be written in formal tone. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

For real people it is important to not be insultingly familiar by using their first name or cloying deferential using honorifics. We strike a balance and try to treat real people the same to avoid any appearance of editorial judgement and to retain the proper level of respect to all real people. Fictional people can't be insulted so the polite rules of how we treat real-people don't need to apply. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

According to? --HamedH94 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking through some actual featured articles which try to demonstrate best practices (MOS and FAs feed into each other) it looks like common name is most used for fictional character descriptions - see Nancy Drew for an example. What really should apply is how the a fictional character is most generally referred to in reliable secondary sources which is what we should be basing all article on anyway. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles get featured as a result of the collective effects of all sections, not just the plot section, which can be one fifth at best. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ALL sections are checked before promotion to GA or FA. Reviewers don't just go, "Oh, I'll let that section slide because it's only a plot". The plot has to comply with requirements as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Also the example I used was a fictional character article which most maps on to real-person bio articles. Note how she is commonly referred to in that article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Still, a text is evaluated in many ways, and only one happens to be the one we're talking about. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The same sets of guidelines apply to all text evaluated for possible promotion to GA or FA. If an article has been promoted to FA, you can rest assured that if this one were evaluated with a view to promoting it to FL, the same guidelines would be followed. --AussieLegend (✉)

it's called featured article, not perfect article. so it shouldn't be followed with closed eyes. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We should try to do everything with discernment but FAs do give exemplars of what general consensus of very experienced editor evaluators is in applying the MOS to real articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, caution is required since no article can be perfect. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Plus, the featured article you mentioned is about a character who has other family members with a shared last name. As mentioned before, the first names should be used in such cases for disambiguation. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't find anything in WP:CYF that discourages use of personal names in regards to fictional characters, the article more seems to be talking about advice about verifiability, and I haven't seen a firm argument that referring to characters by their personal commonly used name is automatically disregarding in-universe. Generally, the name that the character is commonly called in the work is the same name they're typically referred to by third party sources. Additionally, CYF says "As with normal articles, establish context so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject can get an idea about the article's meaning without having to check several links." At this point, I'd argue that referring to characters by personal name is more in keeping with that then referring to characters by last name simply because they have them, even if they are very rarely called that. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's unwise to expect WP to make a guideline for every possibility, since the possibilities are practically infinite. It depends on how to use logic to solve the problems. CYF says the advice about factual articles DOES apply to articles about fiction. And the rest is up to us. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The way that I have always approached this, is that when a character says "Oliver", for example, they are using his real name of "Oliver Queen", just in a way that is appropriate for the situation/context/relationship, etc. This is in opposition to a character calling him "Green Arrow", which is clearly an entirely separate name. We should then use either "Oliver Queen" or "Green Arrow", depending on the context at that point of the summary, but in a way that is more appropriate to our situation and context (i.e. a formally written encyclopaedia): either "Queen" or "Green Arrow". We are still using the same names that the series uses, just in a more formal way than the casual conversations between familiar characters. For people thinking that readers will get confused because we are calling Felicity "Smoak", that is just a silly argument. As per usual, we would introduce her as "Felicity Smoak", and then use "Smoak" from then on. Confusion solved. But again, this series is always going to be more complicated because of the high number of family members it features, so using first names will be necessary for disambiguation. But when it isn't necessary, the default should be a formal representation of the character's name. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that formal writing necessarily precludes using a "more casual" first name usage. From what I've seen of academia, which is very formal indeed, fictional characters are often referred to by first name if that's the name they're popularly known by. To pick an example I happen to have, "Fears of Finitude and Eternity: Attitudes about Immortality and the Afterlife in Selected Movies" in Studies in Popular Culture refers to Padme Amidala and Obi-Wan Kenobi as well as Winnie Foster of Tuck Everlasting by first name. (It also refers to Anakin Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, and Jesse Tuck by first name but those need disambig.) Other characters commonly recognized by last name, James T. Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard, are referred to by last name. In academic essays I've read about Gone with the Wind, Rhett Butler is referred to as Rhett. (Scarlett O'Hara is referred to as Scarlett, but she has sisters who, though not nearly as important do exist, and George Ashley Wilkes, called Ashley in both works and in writing about the works, has plenty of family, so they're not best examples.) Heck, I've seen very formally written academia on Star Wars never use Obi-Wan Kenobi, Padme Amidala, or Leia Organa and just introduce them as Obi-Wan, Padme, and Leia, and I'd venture that one would be hard-pressed to find something that calls Jason Voorhees by last name throughout. It's simply using the name they're most recognized by. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Academic principles are different from encyclopedic ones; since academia study topics professionally whereas an encyclopedia only provides an instruction while covering all topics in all fields. If first names are preferred in academic tone, then a professional should be asked for the reason. It's obvious that formal tone means we shouldn't treat the characters as our friends, because they're not. So unless something like a shared last name for family members exists, last name is preferred. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

While the aims of both are different, yes, the tone is the same: formal. From WP:FORMAL, Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. A formal tone means avoiding slang, avoiding contractions, fluff sentences and phrases that mean nothing, avoiding equivocation when there is none. In my experience, when writing about media and about fictional characters, a formal tone does not preclude referring to them by first name. A fictional character is not inherently the same as a real person; simply referring to a fictional character doesn't inherently mean we're treating a fictional character as a friend because they, inherently, do not exist. It's simply referring to them by their most recognized, most commonly used name. Personally, I'm not following your stating that referring to them by first name is in-universe while simultaneously treating fictional characters as if they need to be afforded the same sensibilities as real people. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

the tone isn't formal; it's professional. every field has its special tone. the formal tone is what politicians and other people use in press conferences, where no one is mentioned by their first name. and like said before, the advice about factual articles does apply to articles about fiction. see this. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, WP:CYF seems to be referring to verifiability and fact-checking, seeing as it's a subheading under another called "Check your facts". The section talks about differentiating between fact and fiction and about being sure to properly reference everything so that they are verifiable, isn't about tone, and so the assertion that advice about factual articles applies to ones about fiction is, as it follows, referring to referencing and verifiability and reliable sourcing. That section has nothing to do with tone. And, your assertion that a professional tone isn't a formal tone makes no sense to me. A professional tone is a formal tone, an academic tone is a formal tone, an encyclopedic is a formal tone. A formal tone is any tone that isn't informal or casual. And, as I had also said, in my experience, the tone used in fields that write about media does not preclude using first names, and, as I quoted from WP:FORMAL, which is from the same essay as CYF, it encourages that one use the style used by the particular field, in this case the fields that write about media. If we were to go along through the various fields statements, politicians and press conferences involving real people is a different field altogether and does not necessarily have a bearing in how to refer to fictional people. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This MOS states that all articles about fiction should be written from a real-world perspective. It means that characters should be referred to as real characters in the real world, not the way they're usually called in the fiction itself, which is the inappropriate in-universe perspective. And you're right about "A formal tone is any tone that isn't informal or casual." Calling people by their first names is an informal way, thus it should be avoided. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A formal tone is, really, the sum of its parts. If a character is known by their first name, referring to them by first name doesn't automatically make it informal. It's using their commonly used name. They're not real people, so the same rules of courtesy don't apply. Formal writing about media often uses first names to reference characters, and so therefore formal writing does not automatically exclude using first names of fictional characters (like it does for real people. Fictional characters are not real people, so, again, the same rules of courtesy and formality don't apply to them.) Writing from an out-of-universe perspective means that the article must be approaches as a work of fiction, i.e. detailing the production, development, release, and critical reception of the world, which is what that section says. Really, I'd argue that insisting that a character must be called by their last name, with no bearing on how significant that name is within the work itself or in third-party commentary about the work, and treating fictional characters' names as if they were the names of real living people is nigh in-universe itself. (This is not to say if the names need to be disambiguated or if names are used equally or are contextual, but your argument itself seems to me to almost come from an in-universe perspective while simultaneously arguing against writing in-universe. In-universe is about presentation of the article as a whole and approaching the topic and balance of information.) ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

looks like you're unfamiliar with the meanings of these words. according to longman dictionary!! "an informal style of writing or speaking is appropriate for ordinary conversations or letters to friends" which includes calling them by their first names. according to the same, "formal language or writing is used for official or serious situations" and official means "approved or done by someone in authority, especially the government" which does happen in press conferences. and this one says that articles should be in formal tone. since it doesn't make exceptions about fiction, and it says "articles", it means including fiction. --HamedH94 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has done a lot of reading and writing for academia, I certainly know what a formal tone is, and a dictionary definition of the words "formal" and "informal" does not accurately convey a whole style of writing that depends on field to field. Seeing as we are not talking about the government, we are not talking about press conferences, and we are not talking about real people (and I don't understand why you keep bringing these up seeing as they are different sheep), the exact style of formal differs. Per the very WP:FORMAL you cite, Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. As I stated before, in this subject matter, formal academic sources on media typically use first name if it is what the character is commonly known by. Yes, it's an informal address, but that alone does not negate the entirety of a multi-faceted style and does not make it wholly informal; it is using a common name, and it is something that is commonly done in formal writing about media, and so first name usage is not automatically unacceptable. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at the characters you mentioned in the first place, I see that disamb. is necessary for them. Padmé Naberrie has two parents. Obi-Wan Kenobi is known as Ben Kenobi before his true name is revealed; and disamb. is required in chronology. Winnie foster has a family. Rhett Butler also does. Leia Organa has adoptive parents with Organa last names. Jason Vorhees has a mother called Pamela. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That is ridiculous thing, considering all of the family members are minor characters. (But I concede Pamela.) Hell, Padme's parents are never named in the films, they might show up for her funeral and that's it, Rhett's family never even show up in his original work. Padme actually uses the last name Amidala as a public figure anyway, so she has two last names. And, Obi-Wan is Ben Kenobi for like one minute before he admits he's Obi-Wan. There's still only one Kenobi anyway, no matter what first name he's using. Bail and Breha Organa never even show up in the original films, and Bail is a minor character in the prequels and Breha doesn't even have a speaking role. They don't even show up in the same films as Leia does. That argument makes no context in those characters and works. Really, your argument isn't making any sense.

@Adamstom.97:, who I don't think I've ever properly responsed to, not that I've looked at it, has a point, that a reader is less likely to get confused if we introduce them with first and last name, and that it is more formal to always use last name. And that is true. My disagreement is that perhaps it is most clear to use a character's most commonly used name, especially if their last name is infrequently used, and that formal writing elsewhere gives example that does not necessarily preclude or exclude the use of first names. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

it doesn't matter how important a character's appearance is or if they appear in the same work as another family member. it's a franchise and academic writings should do disambiguation as much as possible, because one small mistake can make the supervising council or board or whatever else it's called reject the writing and leave a long academic effort in vain. by the way, if your claim is that we should mention the characters the way they're called in the fictional work itself, you should say according to who or what. this is what we've been saying since the beginning and the cycle starts every time with a new user. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the beginning? The basis of your argument has changed, and frankly, I'm not even sure what the basis of your argument is anymore. I'm confused, and I looking back a little, I think I contradicted myself because I'm very confused right now. I didn't say we should call them per work or per character, according to this work or this character, I said their most commonly used name, which is overall, their overall most commonly used name throughout the works and characters referring to them. For clearest. Which, as you point out, academia does. The whys don't really matter--though I maintain that it's ludicrous to disambiguate when other family members are basically non-existent, and I don't think anyone would really do that, but that's not really the point. My argument is that formal academic writing calls them by first name, and so formal writing here can also use first names. Formal writing does not necessarily mean we cannot use their first names and it does not necessarily dictate that we must use their last names. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

the last part meant your answer to adamstom. the basis of my argument isn't the intention of this talk. we should comment on the contribution instead of the contributor. you started a new argument about academia, and now you blame me for it? --HamedH94 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I brought up academia as an example of formal writing. The intention isn't to completely discuss and dissect how academia works. You pointed out formal writing means we must always use a last name, and I said academic formal writing often uses personal names. That's why I brought it up. And the basis of your argument is part of this discussion, it has nothing to do with you but it is about whether or not first names must be used. We can't discuss this without addressing each other's bases of argument? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

when you bring up an example, relevant or not, you should be ready for criticism. i didn't say we must, i said we should. and i didn't say always, cos for family members, disambiguation is necessary; how many times do i have to repeat it? it's not about my argument or someone else's. you should answer every comment as it's from someone new. we're not here to fight each other. wikipedia isn't about winning. actually, i feel good that people have joined this discussion. it shows your senses of responsibility to improve wp. but try to keep the discussions over the comments not the persons. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, whether this article uses Felicity or Smoak doesn't really matter to me, honestly. Really, if an editor wants to call a character with an infrequently used last name by their last name, I'm unlikely to go and change it. My disagreement is with the argument that it's mandatory to call them by last name always. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

We do seem to be going in circles and I see no consensus to use the format preferred by HamedH94. Quite the opposite in fact. I see only HamedH94 advocating this, with the vast majority of editors who have become involved opposing it. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

well, the vast majority contains users who don't usually comment something new and keep saying "we should mention the characters the way they're called" but don't say according to what. --HamedH94 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I literally said it multiple times, I am arguing that characters can be referred to by their most commonly used, most recognizable name. There isn't an "according to what" or who. Most commonly used name means the name that they are most commonly referred to throughout the works and third party sources and everything relating to and about the work. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

the policy you mentioned is about the title of an article. there is no disagreement over that. the title should be the commonly used name. like the page about the lead character of this series (Oliver Queen (Arrow)). we're talking about how the characters should be mentioned in the content, including the plot section. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

To respond to both your comments here, because splitting the thread is making this difficult for me to focus. Really, I'm not trying to win, and while, yes, I shouldn't be linking to a policy on article titles, I was doing so for ease of definition regarding it, which I shouldn't have done. And, really, "you should answer every comment as it's from someone new." That.... is probably why this not going forward, because we're just rehashing the same ground over and over. And must and should are, effectively, the same in this context, in my feeling. And, this discussion, despite how long it is, hasn't gone anywhere at all. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 05:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

this doesn't go anywhere cos every time a new user arrives; and without reading the discussions above, repeats the same statements that have no guideline or essay supporting them, and i have to repeat the responses cos i know they haven't read them above. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the same statements are being repeated because, even after reading the above discussion, they don't find it refuted? I'll re-lay out my argument, seeing as I'm not confident it was properly understood. To cite a specific guideline, I believe that per WP:TECHNICAL, which typically related to science and math and similar articles but has applications to everything (see: WP:BCLASS), which states in the nutshell summary Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material. To make the argument that infrequently used names is part of the "technical" elements of an article about a fictional work or character, in the face of "we should use last names, except in the case of disam, because of formal tone", the statement at WP:TECHNICAL If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms. Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent. would seem in favor of using more commonly and more recognized names of the characters in the interest of broader audience.

I maintain still that the section Check your fiction, the essay you've been citing, talks about verifiability, truthiness, referencing, and factualness because the section is a subheading under Check your facts. Therefore, an out of context "The advice about factual articles also applies to articles on fiction subjects." does not apply to this particular discussion. Per the same essay, from the WP:TONE section, it states that "Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable." In this case, fictional works and characters are not the same subject matter as real people, politics, or press conferences, so the pair are a false equivalent. Though the section states a formal tone should be used, it also says that a formal tone and what it stipulates varies from subject to subject, and formal tone in reference to fictional works does not have the same shoulds and musts and conventions as formal tone in reference to real people. It states what constitutes a nonformal tone: "argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader" and using first names is none of these. Again, per that same section, most reliable sources relating to media use first names. I bring up academia, and your claims that it's disambiguating for characters are practically non-existent is far-fetched, in my opinion. Why an academic would feel the need to differentiate Padme Amidala from her two unnamed parents who don't even use Amidala themselves is beyond me. Referring to a character by their personal name is not WP:INUNIVERSE because doing so does not inherently present the character as if they are a real person; in-universe refers to treating fictional material, i.e. plot and characters, as if they were real-world counterparts. In my opinion, your assertion that referring to them by first name is presenting as if we are friends with the characters actually seems to come from an in-universe perspective, it assumes that one can be friends with fictional people in the first place. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 06:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

that's exactly why i say you guys don't read what's already answered above. every character is introduced with full name the first time and then mentioned by last (except for disam). plus there's a characters section in the article. so the article is understandable to the widest audience. names of the characters aren't terms. common term means that if, for example, a specific hacking method is used in the fiction, it should only be mentioned as a "hack" of "cyber attack" in here. WP:TONE says "Standards for formal tone vary depending..." so the word formal is still there. and now it's up to us what formal tone is, cos like i said before, we can't expect wp to designate a policy for every possibility. now what should we do to reach a consensus in what the word formal means? you ignore what dictionary says and invent a new meaning for it without citing a valid dictionary, no part of which talks about academic stuff. WP:TONE makes examples by mentioning "argot, slang,..." it's not just these. is it so difficult to understand that calling someone by their first name is informal? does wp really need to mention that, cos if it does, it needs to mention other stuff alike, which is practically infinite. now you're gonna bring up that sentence again "that applies to real characters, not fictional ones" like i said before, WP:TONE doesn't make exceptions about fiction. that means, it includes fiction. do you expect wp to mention that in there too? and like i said before, academic writings should be precise to be approved by the boards. thus, even if another family member is mentioned only one time, the academic writer should be as cautious as they can. but this topic isn't about that, actually your example about academia is kinda irrelevant. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC):::::::::::::::And my argument about widest audience possible is use most recognized name so that people don't have to scroll up and down through the article to check facts. And, as I said before, formal tone is a stylistic endeavor, and isn't wholly contained in a dictionary definition. (Though, since you insist on a dictionary definition, per OED, one of them is: "Of or pertaining to customary form or conventionality." i.e., what is customary or conventional, i.e. ) Yes, WP:TONE doesn't list everything, it simply sets forth basic principles and most notable exceptions, and I don't expect it to list everything, because we are urged to use WP:COMMONSENSE. WP:TONE says the conventions of formal tone changes per field and to use what is associated with the field, and I have argued, at length, that formal tone associated with writing about fictional characters does not preclude referring to characters by first name, if that is what the character is most recognized by. Your saying that the word formal exists, but I am not saying we're going for an informal tone, I've been saying that this particular field allows that in its formal language. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

that policy says the audience shouldn't have to check other articles, not scroll up and down. is it really possible to cook everything for the audience at the same section? I insisted on a dictionary cos you appear to define a new meaning for the word, while its meaning is obvious. COMMONSENSE is for exceptional situations, like disam being necessary for family members, which we approve to be justifiable. COMMONSENSE doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you want, wherever you want. You’re saying “that this particular field allows that in its formal language” but according to what? --HamedH94 (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I was citing COMMONSENSE as a reason not every exception is listed. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

and exceptions should be rational, like disam for family members. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: you say that the consensus doesn't support me. yet you didn't continue your argument as apparently you found it baseless yourself. so either mention a new reason or don't revert the edits with the excuse of an alleged consensus. cos according to this, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." the majority members have failed to present any valid sources for their claims. --HamedH94 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

you say that the consensus doesn't support me. yet you didn't continue your argument as apparently you found it baseless yourself It seems rather pointless discussing things with you when you make rather silly claims like that. I stand by what I've written, and what others have written as well. TenTonParasol has tried to convince at length that your argument that last names must always be used, and you just don't seem to understand. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

i've never said "always use last names". remember disam? actually in this article there are lots of family members and first names should be used more frequently. if you believe any part of my argument to be silly, as you say, feel free to mention the reason. your argument about confusion of a small imaginary minority that gets confused at all circumstances seems more silly. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

According to you (Hamed). I certainly feel that Parasol, myself, Aussie, all presented valid arguments as to why "formal tone" does not impact a fictional character's mentioning. I pointed to examples of how that doesn't apply. Parasol explained academia to you. Everyone has engaged in this debate with you at some point, and provided examples and reasoning. YOU do not accept them, which does not negate their validness. Consensus is NOT about converting a non-believer to a believer, just as it isn't simply a head count. This discussion has not been a "I agree with this person" and nothing else. Everyone has provided a rationale for you beyond just agreement because "they like it". The difference is, you're not budging (which is ok). The guideline you point to does not explicitly say what you say it does. Maybe it is time that you accept the consensus that is clearly established here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

that's exactly why you people's claims are baseless. cos you don't present any wp guideline. you make examples of other articles that have the same mistake. this seems to have been accepted just because no one's ever challenged it, and even that's not true: see this talk. budging? wikipedia isn't about winning. and what i'm trying to do is to improve this article in order to fulfill the encyclopedic standards. but the common sentence you and most of others have repeated is "we should mention the characters the way they're called" but none of you guys ever gave any valid reason. and like i said, your interpretation of consensus is wrong. see this.--HamedH94 (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

How do you preach "talk don't revert", when that is exactly what you did to my edit? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

i did that after you left the discussion; and i assumed that you were somehow convinced. but it appears you don't wanna talk while you wanna enforce your belief, whether or not it's right. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I disagree with Drovethrughosts in the Agents of Shield article too. (Admittedly, even as someone who doesn't watch the series anymore but did know about Daisy, for a second I thought "Johnson is her last name? Huh.") Really, if formal tone has a firm no re: using first names when there's no need to disambiguate, then, as mentioned by Geraldo Perez, featured articles would be rewritten to upon review to use last names (except in the case of disam). You've said they've made a mistake, but the fact that they use first names helps establish a sort of consensus, even if you think they made a mistake. (And your dismissals of academia being not relevant and FAs being wrong amounts to "I don't like it", And my understanding is that your argument is "use last names unless disam", which is the same as "always use last names unless disam" so I am either confused or mistaken. And, I certainly don't understand this new statement that there are a lot of family members in this article so last names will be more frequently.

As for our line of argument not citing any guidelines, I've cited the ones I believe apply here and why I believe they apply. (And, I really would and do argue that a fictional character's name is a term in context of a fictional work, and I do think it's part of the technical aspects of articles involving fictional characters.) ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

like mentioned in this, consensus isn't measured by the majority's point of view, but the qualities of the arguments of the oppposing parties. You made an example of academia, but didn’t make any valid examples of characters who don’t need disam. saying "always use last names unless disam" spontaneously refutes the word "always" so your conclusion is absurd. when I say there are a lot of family members, it means that your first name position will be fulfilled more frequently. you mentioned wp:formal for the way to follow the style of sources, but your characters of academia do need disam. then you mentioned wp:technical which is something completely irrelevant. it's about the professional terms used in a specific field. I don't understand how you consider a character's name a technical term. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me that anyone writing about the Star Wars films would want to disambiguate Padme Naberrie Amidala because she has parents who are named in a minor piece of media and use the last name Naberrie while Padme herself in the films is referred to half the time as Amidala? Or, that Obi-Wan Kenobi is being disambiguated because he uses the alternative name Ben Kenobi, which is actually a case to call him plain Kenobi? That someone writing about Gone With the Wind would disambiguate Rhett Butler because he has a sister named in one line in passing and family members named in an unauthorized novel and then another novel not nearly as well-known? Academic writing on Firefly often calls Inara Serra just Inara, Jayne just Jayne, Malcolm Reynolds just Mal (though, just as often calls him Reynolds while using first name for the others). Additionally, FA-class articles use first name to refer to characters, which builds a sort of consensus of what is acceptable. You cannot dismiss them simply because you believe them wrong. And I stated already why I thought TECHNICAL was relevant, per being something cited in BCLASS. But even without that point, the rest of my argument is still supported, regardless of how many times you say it's baseless. Much of your dismissals amount to "I don't like it" or "I'm right and they're wrong", or it strikes me as stretching the situation to ridiculousness and splitting hairs so you can refute it on absurd grounds.

I simply misunderstood your family member point because it appears you wrote last name instead of first name ("last names should be used more frequently"), for that I apologize.

Additionally, your attempts to surreptitiously add your position into the article isn't wise. I would hate for this discussion to end on the basis of disruptive behavior. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

like i said and you apparently didn't see, you referred to academic writings and i did insist that academic writings should be as precise as possible for the board not to have an excuse to reject them. that's why disam is absolutely necessary in academia, plus you still haven't said why you consider professional and formal tone equal. and that's why academic stuff isn't an appropriate example for encyclopedic purposes. but you continue to defend that position. the truth is, SOME FA articles use first names, not most. that shows there isn't a connention. plus most of those FA articles most probably need disam. so that's not a basis for consensus. i don't believe them wrong. i did and will say again. FAs are evaluated in many ways. and they're featured not perfect articles. i don't understand how the bclass stuff is relevant. bclass is apparently a criterion for showing an article meeting the standards. none of bclass says the policy involves everything. is it really rational to think that a policy can be applied for everything, while you yourself argue against it at other places. is it so difficult to understand the meaning of "term"? you continue to invent new meanings and interpretations. and do remind us how your argument is supported while you don't mention any valid thing but the funny personal dictionary with weird meanings for words like "formal","term",... in the meantime, i've always mentioned citations of wp guidelines and essays for my positions, not all of which i admit to be valid. but most are. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

that was just a mistake that i typed "last names" instead of "first names". i corrected it. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

the truth is, i've started watching this series recently, and i don't just replace the names in every episode after i watch it. and the style of using last names isn't what i use only in this article. so i've kinda gotten used to it. but thanks for reminding. i'll try to write it your way until the dispute reaches a relative consensus. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand your argument that formal academic writing is inapplicable as a support. It's a formal writing. Why is it inadmissible? I have told you that there are writings that have no need for precision or disambiguation and yet use first names anyway. I don't understand your professional/formal tone divide. Academic writing is an example of formal writing.

And you assertion that because only some articles use first name, not most, so therefore there isn't a connection makes no sense. It needs not be all of the articles, for something to be admissible. Some FAs use first name usage, so that is a support that first name usage is admissible in formal tone here in regards to fictional characters. Yes, they're not perfect, but they are the models we're encouraged to look to, and at this moment, this is one of the possibilities they put forward. If there is an en masse, change, then this can also change. To go through FA and GAs.

Firefly (TV series) refers to Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds as Mal, Jayne Cobb as Jayne, and Inara Serra as Inara throughout, despite there being no need for disambiguation. (Note, Derrial Book is referred to exclusively as "Book" throughout the series, and so because that's his commonly used name, it's used.)
List of Uncharted characters - Regarding the major characters, refers to Elena Fisher and Chloe Frazer as Elena and Chloe. I'm not overly familiar with the series beyond the first one, but I know they're commonly called by first name, and Victor Sullivan is typically referred to as "Sully", and the article uses both "Sully" and "Sullivan". The article typically refers to Nathan Drake as his commonly used "Nate" or "Nathan", however there are other Drakes, especially Sam Drake.
List of Naruto characters - often uses first names

The Time Traveler's Wife - refers to Henry DeTamble as Henry and Clare Anne Abshire as Clare
The James Bond articles--Dr. No (novel), Casino Royale (novel), among many others--refer to "James Bond" as "Bond", but he is widely recognized by the name, and James is much more infrequently used.
Jack Sparrow - uses Sparrow (though, I'd personally argue "Jack" and "Sparrow" are used evenly to refer to him within the films and in third party usage, in my experience)
Fight Club (film) - first name usage
Casablanca (film) - Rick Blaine and Ilsa Lund referred to by first name. Victor Lazslo referred to by last name. Film largely refers to him sa Laszlo, rather than Victor. Louis Renault is also referred to by last name.
Pilot (House) - last name usage. the series near-exclusively refers to the characters by last name
Battlefield Earth (film) - Jonnie Goodboy Tyler, the only character with a last name, is referred to as Jonnie.
Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) - Donna Noble is Donna
Over There (Fringe) - Most characters are referred to by first name, except for William Bell. Note, there are two Bishops, Walter and Peter. This episode also deals with dopplegangers, but those have different "names" ("Fauxlia" and "Alt-Charlie")
Blade Runner - Rick Deckard is referred to by last name, but he's most frequently called "Deckard" and "Rick" is infrequently used
The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) - refers to characters by first name, with exception of Rupert Giles (who is commonly called by last name, with Rupert infrequently used). Note, there are three Summers women--Buffy, Dawn, and Joyce.
The Hunger Games (novel) - first names
Nikki and Paulo - Nikki Fernandez is referred to as Nikki. Note, Paulo has no known last name.
Tokyo Mew Mew and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters - refers to characters by first name.
Pilot (Parks and Recreation) - refers to characters by first name
Jabba the Hutt - refers to Han Solo as "Han", with the ocassional "Solo"
School Rumble - mixed usage, referring to some characters by first, others by last
Batman - interestingly, says usually "Bruce Wayne" often, with some examples of just plain "Wayne" (i.e. "In the 2009 miniseries Batman: Battle for the Cowl, Wayne's former protégé Dick Grayson becomes the new Batman, and Wayne's son Damian becomes the new Robin.") and just plain "Bruce" (" Having practically raised Bruce since his parents' death, Alfred knows him on a very personal level. He is sometimes portrayed as the only other resident of Wayne Manor aside from Bruce.")
Tom Swift - Like Batman actually too, calls the character "Tom Swift" almost exclusively, with occasion examples of just "Swift" ("Several inventions, including the Taser, have been inspired allegedly by Swift's fictional inventions.") or just "Tom" ("When his airship bangs into a tower, Tom is uncharacteristically nonplussed and needs support."[23] However, as the series progresses, Tom's inventions...")

In the case of articles like Nancy Drew, Jason Voorhees, Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, I would argue that because the article has a clear primary topic and is referring to a particular member of a family, referring to these characters by last name wouldn't actually be confusing on their own particular article. On an article about Nancy Drew the character, Drew would be clearly referring to Nancy Drew because she is the topic of the article. One isn't going to assume, to take a sentence and swap the name, "Drew is also able to travel freely about the United States" in an article about Nancy that we're suddenly talking about her dad. (Just like how in Michelle Obama, we're not going to suddenly think "Obama" is referring to her husband.) (Though, Nancy Drew is called in her article typically by both names, but with cases of just plain Nancy.) In that case, I'd argue, really, one could use last names on an article primarily about a particular member of a family, disambiguation isn't strictly necessary as we're talking primarily about one member of the family, any other members should be referred to by "FirstName LastName" and disam'd that way because they are secondary. Bernard Quatermass has a daughter and granddaughter, who appear to be minor characters but exist, and he is referred to as Quatermass (I'm not overly familiar with him, but the reliable sources cited refer to him by last name, so it is possible he's more frequently referred to by last name, all of the works take after his first name, so that appears to be his most recognized name), with Hettie (who is mentioned more than once) being referred to be her first name.

Out of the featured article I've jumped through, last name usage typically appears to be when the character is most recognized by their last name, first name usage is when the character is recognized by their first name, and it appears if a character is known by both, treating the name like a phrase, the article uses both at the same time. By this, I say that it's typically acceptable to use first name usage if that's the name it's known by. As I said before, it needs not be in all featured articles to be considered acceptable. But if an article is able to get to FA that way, even acknowledging that they're not always perfect perfect, then perhaps it is a sign that it is admissible and allowable. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

the problem with academic writings is that even if a character doesn't have family members currently, they might in the future. most of the family members of fictional characters are introduced in upcoming works. that may seem weird to you. but an academic writing can be used by a sophomore thirty years after the writer's death. while that can't be said for wp, since it can be edited any time. that's why "academia" is a totally different world. academic writings are secondary sources; that means they're so valuable for use as references in tertiary sources like wp. but their style of using first names can't be an appropriate template. i'm not saying that all FAs must use first names so that there is a correlation. in statistics, for a correlation that states "FAs use first names", the majority of FAs is needed, while there isn't such majority. since pure logic can't be enough, we need to get help from statistics. and again, there is no guideline or essay that supports this sentence "we should mention the characters the way they're called." --HamedH94 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I find your tone patronizing. And, your argument makes little sense. Academia's job is not to speculate on the future, nor to adapt to what might happen in the future. (It'd never be able to do anything!) Academia writes on the current state of a work. Frankly, I find that argument wholly absurd. And, as a secondary reliable source, I'd argue that it is the reliable sources WP:TONE refers to when it states: Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. As far as "majority of FAs is needed" per statistical reasons, I see no guideline urging that's how things are done. I simply argued that the presence of this on some FAs means that the FA review process, the standard article strive for, does not hold prejudice against a first name usage. It does not require a majority. I'm not gunning for an "FAs use first names" sweeping generalization, only that because it is present on some number of FAs indicates that the peer review process does not forbid it, so it is admissible. I gave case examples that I'm personally familiar with, I've illustrated my point, which is that some FAs use first names when that is the name most familiar to a casual audience, and some use last name when that is the name most familiar to a casual audience. As for me citing nothing to support that we should use first names if they are the character's most frequently used and most recognized name in an attempt to maintain the clearest prose possible throughout, I've already very extensively supported my position. Whether or not you agree with it, you cannot say that I haven't cited what I felt applies. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

yes, academia don't speculate on the future; but they do consider it. they can't edit their previous versions; and they want their writings to be used by several upcoming generations. while wp articles can be improved any time. something you apparently don't understand. but this discussion isn't about academia. it was simply an example you brought up, which is not relevant to the topic. i did notice that part of TONE; but like i said, that first name part needs to be an exception in the style, as you guys always stick to stuff like IAR and COMMONSENSE, which is rational in this case for the reason i said. it's not about wp guidelines that say "majority of FAs is needed", it's a principle in statistics. the review committee can't ignore all other good features of a proposed article for just it contains first names or other petty things. besides, disam may be required in some of them. you've cited FORMAL and COMMONSENSE for your claims; and the former contains a sentence about using the style used in reliable sources. but your COMMONSENSE can be used for making an exception on using first names for the reason that i've mentioned many times. plus FORMAL's main goal is the word "formal" which obviously means not mentioning someone by their first name. and COMMONSENSE can be used in this instance for disam case. that's what is meant by COMMONSENSE, not using it wherever you want. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"the review committee can't ignore all other good features of a proposed article for just it contains first names or other petty things." As someone who has watched a lot of FAs, they can, and they have. Really, I've argued my case, and we're going in circles again and attempting to refute again what we've already attempted to refute, and I have nothing new to add at the current moment, and I don't see a need to continue going in circles. I stand by what I've presented. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 05:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

so you're saying that committees are private groups that follow your position and only consider the first name usage without looking at the other 99% of the features?!! but you're right about the circles. i'm kinda getting a headache by repeating the obvious and citing my references while you guys only make irrelevant examples and cite stuff that are about exceptional situations. but i'm not pulling out. if anyone has a new point of view, i'm ready to discuss. if anyone wants to repeat what's answered, i'm ready for that too, cos my idealism for improving this encyclopedia isn't hindered by such stuff. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the featured article review process, I suggest you read WP:FAR. I'm genuine, sometimes, it is the little things, if left unaddressed, that cause an article to fail the nomination. I would also caution about using language like "but i'm not pulling out" in the future because it may be construed as a WP:WINNING approach. And, I do also caution that some may construe "my idealism for improving this encyclopedia isn't hindered by such stuff" as a lack of good faith, as in some may believe it implies those who have firmly remained by their points, such as myself, do not have the interest of improving the encyclopedia at heart. I state this as friendly advice. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 05:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

maybe you should look at the criteria on which FAs are evaluated. it includes reviewing policies and guidelines, but not essays, which FORMAL is. actually, making the content formal isn't mandatory as it's just an essay. but since this is an encyclopedia, it's better that the content be formal. thus, some FAs randomly use first names while others don't, cos that's not a criterion. i've mentioned WINNING many times before, so obviously i'm not intending to win. and by the other sentence, i meant that you guys might surrender to your idealism, but i won't. i do assume the good faith for all of you. --HamedH94 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I do think it's worth noting that no new comment arguing an opposing position doesn't necessarily mean that a consensus for the position you've taken has been reached. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If anything, consensus seems to be against supporting HamedH94's position. That nobody has commented more recently doesn't change that, it just means HamedH94 has failed to convince anyone to change their position. It really seems time for HamedH94 to drop the stick and back away. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

like i said before, according to this, consensus is based on the quality of the argument, not the majority's view. all your arguments have been refuted and you haven't answered. the page also mentions your statement that other users' withdrawal doesn't prove a consensus. but how else can we go on when none of you guys wanna talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamedH94 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel as if the arguments opposing to yours have been sufficiently refuted, especially in the face of the fact that first name usage occurs on a number of featured and good articles and on featured lists (when the character is most often referred to and recognized by that name). And, really, to speak for myself, I haven't withdrawn, I simply see that this is going in circles. And there is no need to continue running into the circles. Should a new, perhaps stronger refutation arise, then I will continue the discussion and perhaps change my stance. At the very least, there isn't a consensus here, in my opinion (but I'm an involved editor, so I cannot reasonably say), but in that case, status quo remains. And the article presently uses first name usage. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

like i said and you apparently didn't see, featured article criteria don't include essays. and i did say that using last names isn't mandatory since it's an essay. but it's better so as to meet encyclopedic standards. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

HamedH94's edits have been repeatedly opposed. When this happens the burden is on the editor wishing to change the content, in this case the method we use to refer to fictional characters, to gain consensus for the changes. HamedH94 has failed to achieve consensus. In such cases the status quo prevails. HamedH94 has indeed been going around in circles and I don't see it improving. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This dispute is taken to DRN. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, I stopped commenting here as I made my points and I see nothing to refute them. No need to keep going around in circles saying the same things over and over again. I support using names most commonly used in the references, both primary and secondary sources. I see nothing in the above discussion to cause me to change my position on this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC: First or Last Names?

The general consensus is that the principle of WP:COMMONNAME should be followed, even though the relevant policy is a naming convention. This will likely mean most characters are referred to by first name and others by last name. Deryck C. 12:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should first names or last names be used for the characters?

Please state your positions in the Survey by !voting First or Last, along with supporting rationale. Do not engage in threaded discussion in the Survey. Threaded discussion should be in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

First to the names in question in this article as that is common usage in reliable sources about this show including the show itself and articles about the show. The essay used in above discussion as support for using last names, WP:Writing better articles § Tone, is being misread and does not do so, so there is no support in any policy or essay to use last names when it is not the common way of referring to fictional characters. § Tone does support using "style used by reliable sources", "clear and understandable". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies § Subsequent use is analogous and may provide some guidance but it is a part of the MOS for biographies which is for real people so works of fiction definitely don't fall under its purview. So § Tone supports using names as described in reliable sources, counter to what is claimed. The existing consensus for works of fiction is to use common names and that is based on well-understood practice as exemplified by wide and long-lasting GA, FA and FL usage. Also § Tone, which does support using common names and in no way says anything counter to the standard practice. It would be too disruptive to standard practice in existing articles of works of fiction and disruptive to the project as a whole to set a counter precedent in this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

To add - As an example of encyclopedic tone that is not Wikipedia see Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Cheers written by "The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica" for what they consider proper encylopedic tone for some fictional characters when they consider it appropriate. Encyclopædia Britannica considers it proper tone to refer to some fictional characters by first name after being introduced with a full name. Also there was no ambiguity with others with the same last name in those articles. This is inline with Wikipedia use on our featured articles and lists. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow sourcing or WP:COMMONNAME. I suspect a lot of the time that will be the first name, though in some rarer cases in might be the last name. One thing is for certain, though – WP:SURNAME does not apply to fictional characters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Last since WP is an encyclopedia, one of the five pillars. so it's obvious that the tone of the content should not be like casual and personal websites and blogs. also, the MOS:REALWORLD encourages a real world perspective and includes the fictional characters. real world perspective means not mentioning the characters the way they're called in the work itself, which is the discouraged in-universe perspective. but i don't support last name usage in all circumstances, since sometimes first names are necessary for disam. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Append also, FORMAL encourages the use of formal tone for all articles; and it doesn't exclude fiction. the essay discourages colloquialism, which i interpret as using first names, aliases and nicknames. --HamedH94 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Common name(s) The policy on consensus provides for consensus to be achieved through editing, and I believe strongly that consensus to use common names for fictional characters already exists in the form of the thousands of fiction articles written using characters' common names, contributed by thousands of editors over hundreds of thousands of edits. This is the first such dispute that I can remember on this subject in six years of editing. Referring to characters by surnames as a matter of general rule is contrary to common editing norms and common sense. It wouldn't make sense to change Happy Days episode summaries so that we have consistent usage of "Fonzarelli", because that's not how the series or the audience or the media generally refers to Fonzie. Nor are we going to start describing the SpongeBob characters Squidward and Patrick as Tentacles and Star, or Tom and Jerry as Cat and Mouse because both examples are just silly: "Mouse sneaks up behind Cat and ignites a blowtorch under Cat's ass, causing Cat to catch fire and scream." Do we remember the much-talked-about soap opera romance between Spencer and Webber, or are our readers more familiar with the names Luke and Laura? Even WP:SURNAME, which endeavors to guide tone in biographical articles is not set in stone--We refer to Madonna Louise Ciccone as Madonna, not as Ciconne. We don't say Sarkisian, we say Cher because that's the name she's commonly known by fans, readers, and the media. There are common-sense exceptions to formal tone, and writing about fiction is one of them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Use common names There is little more to say on this that has not already been said in the first discussion, or the discussion at DRN. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Prefer common name, what they're most frequently called in the work and in secondary and tertiary sources. In this particular case with this article, and in most cases, it is first name. To do so isn't automatically in-universe. Real-world perspective is an approach to the overall of the article, and to refer to characters by first name does not automatically mean we're not treating the characters as objects of the narrative. I believe that per WP:TECHNICAL, which typically related to science and math and similar articles but has applications to everything (see: WP:BCLASS), which states in the nutshell summary: Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material. I generally feel that names of characters, and the ins and outs of them and especially when they have parts of the name that are infrequently used, it gets to be a little inside baseball, and so they fall under guidance offered by WP:TECHNICAL. Many of our FA, FL, and GA class articles also use first name usage, which points to a convention and practice that first name usage may be used if the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS agrees to that. To be clear, I don't think it's necessarily harmful either way, and if a local group of editors believes it is better for an article that it uses last names rather than more commonly used first names, that should be okay. But, my position is that formal tone (especially as first name usage is often used in formally written academic sources) and convention and practice on article does not preclude or prohibit first name usage if a character is commonly referred to and widely recognized by that name. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 13:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Append Per discussion involving and statement made by FeatherPluma and Pincrete, I want to append that I do believe, on a general level, if there's an equal usage of names, especially in third-party sources, there should be a favor for last names. But, as I have from the beginning, I always stress that these should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and implemented per consensus of local groups of editors, and there shouldn't be a rigid set of rules governing this. It's a style preference issue, that's informed by a lot of factors, and it's best solved at article level. They're both acceptable styles with each their place; and this whole discussion at some point, from the beginning, devolved into an attempt to implement a rigid set of "rules" (for lack of a better word) on what is acceptable. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Common names, per everything said above; I don't believe there's anything new to add. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Last name, unless a strong case can be made for 'commonname' other than within dialogue or amongst fans. Comparisons with 'Tom and Jerry' are invalid, since these are their whole names (and they aren't fictional humans). I checked out Harry Potter, and Anne of Green Gables which do use first/known names. 'Family fictions' would necessarily make use of 'first names', but a strong case needs to be made to deviate from the norm on fiction articles, which is family name. I looked at other examples too and it was noticable that child characters were more commonly first name, adult ones family names, this mirrors usage in the real world. What is the case for deviating from the norm here? Pincrete (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Common names, i.e. first names in this case, per the arguments above. I can't really add much more either. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Common name(s) WP:COMMONNAME is policy. Although it explicitly relates to article titles, the general principles of name selection do implicitly carry down logically to article content. Holmes and Watson, Mork and Mindy. Accordingly, if, and only if, there were equipoise in whether first or last name was the common name in a given hypothetical article, I would think last name would prevail, as a nod to formality. But otherwise it is overwhelmingly obvious that within each article a preference can clearly arise by consensus, based on common sense factors such as reader recognition, source preference and other contextual factors. Although I am not familiar with this series, it seems to me from reading locus after locus of reasoning - Talk page, DRN and now here at RfC - that the myriad of contextual arguments and stated usage in cited sources convincingly and irrefutably weighs in favor of the use of first names within this article. Once the informed selection is established for an individual article, as it has been here, I would very strongly oppose a change without good specific cause (specific to the article content) and without emergent consensus, as such a change would be analogous to arbitrarily preferring a particular citation style or a particular style of English. It is not possible, let alone even slightly desirable, to use this article as a platform to launch a campaign to make this issue a matter of uniform edict for either first or last name. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Common name sounds about right. These are fictional characters, and not only fictional but comic book fictional. Most times you see writing on something like Batman the full name is used, Bruce Wayne. When the full name is not used it's usually Bruce. Even in our own wiki article on Batman. Cartoons and comics are also probably different than fictional novels, but even with our article on Gone with the Wind when not said in full it's Rhett... not Butler. These things probably need to be looked at case by case and apply common sense and WP:COMMON. We certainly do not apply the same restrictions as we do with BLP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Last - Summoned by bot. Unless the WP:COMMONNAME is the character's first name. Meatsgains (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

User:Geraldo Perez, WP:TONE is an essay, something i didn't completely understand the meaning of earlier. so its content isn't accepted by the community and the phrase "used by reliable sources" isn't accepted either. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That something is an essay does not mean that it isn't accepted by the community. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

you should read the page, which says "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval" --HamedH94 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That still does not mean that they are not accepted by the community. It just means they don't have the status of policies or guidelines, some of which actually refer to essays. There are over 2,000 links to WP:TONE; it is something that is widely referred to. If you read beyond the first sentence of WP:ESSAY you will see that it says Although essays are not policies or guidelines, many are worthy of consideration. Policies and guidelines cannot cover all circumstances, consequently many essays serve as interpretations or commentary of perceived community norms for specific topics and situations. The value of an essay should be understood in context, using common sense and discretion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

actually, I was the first user to use TONE and linked it several times for my position. but another user said they were "just essays" and I started looking for guidelines and MOSes. speaking of TONE, it says that content should be formal and they should not contain colloquialism, which obviously means not using first names. but TONE has a controversial part saying "used by reliable sources" for which COMMONSENSE is justified, for the reason that I explained extensively to tentonparasol. and if you're not in the mood to find it above, I am to explain again. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And that is your basic mistake. First names are not necessarily colloquialisms so your starting premise "obviously means not using first names" driving this issue here is wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Looks like we're going in circles again as colloquialisms have already been addressed. A person's full name is their formal name. Using your first name, or last, to refer to you does not make it a colloquialism. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

take a look at this page at wiktionary, which says "colloquial" means "that which is used in conversations and chats" do you really expect it to mention "first name" there too? --HamedH94 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because some words are used in colloquial speech does not mean they cannot also be used in formal speach. We don't have separate distinct vocabularies. Some words and wording that are used exclusively in colloquial speech should be avoided in formal speech. First names are not colloquialisms. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

i'm not saying they "can not be used". essays aren't mandatory. according to that wikitionary page, colloquial means "Of or pertaining to a conversation; conversational or chatty" is it wise to expect everything (including first names) to be mentioned there? --HamedH94 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Using a first name when appropriate does not turn business level written language into something conversational or chatty. The rest of the word choices and style of using the language are what do that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

that which is used in conversations and chats I'm confused. The page I see doesn't say that at all. It says "a manner of speaking or writing that is characteristic of familiar conversation; informal." --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

well, according to wiktionary, "informal" means "Reflecting everyday, non-ceremonious usage." which is calling by first names. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Using first names does not make something informal in context and how the language is used in general. Lots of overlap between everyday spoken use and more formal written use and names is one of them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hang on. Let's back up here. You wrote "that which is used in conversations and chats". Placing the text in quotation marks means that you are quoting what is written on the page. However, that's not on the page. You seem to be re-interpreting what is written and trying to pass that off as the definition. You've now done that with "informal" by claiming that calling by first names is informal in all circumstances and that is very clearly not the case. As Geraldo has said, there is a lot of overlap, and he is quite correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

looks like you guys need small dictionaries in your pockets and magical interprettors by your sides all the time. do we need another rfc to confirm that calling people by first names is an informal way? what are you guys trying to achieve by repeating irrational interpretations and invented meanings for words that are obvious? remember that WP isn't about winning. --HamedH94 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No actually we are native English speakers and are very familiar with how the language is used. Please read the article you linked to. Also you probably should look up what "irrational" means and why characterizing well-reasoned rational arguments as irrational is not accurate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

it doesn't matter whethere you're native or not. there is dictionary and there are obvious meaning for words that you guys simply ignore. your interpretations of words like "colloquial", "formal" ,... do seem irrational.--HamedH94 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You need a better dictionary or need to read it more carefully - we all have a very good understanding of what the words mean. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

for better dictionary, longman says: "coloquial language or words are used mainly in informal conversations rather than in writing or formal speech" --HamedH94 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And the words under discussion are not used mainly in informal conversations so they are not colloquialisms and it has been well-demonstrated that they are used in written business level speech. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

and "informal", aacording to longman means: "relaxed and friendly without being restricted by rules of correct behavior", "an informal style of writing or speaking is appropriate for ordinary coversations or letters to friends" first name is completely showing, but you want it to be there, literally. something unwise. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Applying dictionary definitions to individual words within a phrase or sentence, which is what you are doing, can completely the meaning of the phrase or sentence. That's a mistake that non-native speakers often make. Most words have multiple meanings and a native speaker will look at the entire sentence and apply the correct definition to each word within the context of the entire sentence. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

colloquial has one meaning in longman and i mentioned it. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're skewing close to personal attacks, I recommend you reconsider that line of staments in the future. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was concerned about when I added my first/fourth statement at DRN. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94: As for tone and as an example that is not Wikipedia see Buffy the Vampire Slayer written by "The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica" for what they consider proper encylopedic tone for this fictional character. Note how the principal character is referred to in that article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

buffy summers has a sister called dawn; and disam is necessary. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94: No other person named "Summers" was mentioned in that Encyclopædia Britannica article (I checked before I chose that as an example) so first name disambiguation was definitely not necessary there. "Buffy Summers" was mentioned once and subsequent use is "Buffy". Read the article, it is very short and it does demonstrate what Encyclopædia Britannica considers proper tone with respect to names. Arguments that proper encyclopedic tone requires last name formality for fictional characters is specious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

it doesn't matter if other family members are mentioned in THAT article. those characters do exist in the fictional universe and most of the readers are familiar. so disam is necessary. though there is a minority of casual readers. but the familiar readers, who are the majority, shouldn't get confused at all. and that's what britannica is doing. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94: Blatantly wrong, articles stand on their own. People are introduced with their full name and a short referral name used afterwords. Only use first name disambiguation if others with the same last name were introduced in that same article. Following a rule that just because other people with the same last name exist in the real or fictional universe we must use first name in all articles about any of those people means we would always use first names everywhere in all cases even in places even where there is no chance of ambiguity of who is being referred to. Encyclopædia Britannica is not a fan site and they write for people who want some general knowledge of the show, not fans. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

actually, there's an ocian of articles in britannica that use last names instead of first. like the pages of captain america and iron man. one article won't prove anything you claim. it must've been a mistake. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

When appropriate to the subject and their style standards and no, Britannica does not make those types of mistakes. My point stands. One refuting example is sufficient to disprove an absolute as this one does. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

everyone can make mistakes. that's not a refuting example, cos many other articles already refute that. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Not with a publication that has a well-deserved reputation for being well-edited, accurate and correct, and generally considered as an exemplar of what Wikipedia would like to be of a good well-written encyclopedia. And other articles there that do use last names subsequent referrals only do not refute the point that there are appropriate places to use referrals of either first or last names when dictated by the subject matter and context. Britannica doesn't make those types of mistakes and basing an argument on that possibility is pointless. Your point that it is never correct to use first name referrals when unambiguous and last name is known to keep to encyclopedic tone is refuted by an example where it obviously is correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

so you're saying that the authors of britannica are kinda supernatural beings and are immune to mistake. when most articles use last names, the usage of first names in few ones IS a mistake. --HamedH94 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are immune to that kind of basic mistake. You still don't get the concept of appropriate usage of language, it seems and when and when not first names, last names or full names are appropriate in normal written business English. Context matters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

no they're not. if you repeat your statement without saying something new, i'll see no reason to respond. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

They do not make those kinds of very basic mistakes. That is inconceivable for a publication with their reputation for accuracy and correctness. Your assertion is based on a belief of fundamental incompetence of a well-respected professionally created encyclopedia just because it refutes your premise and that is effectively the only counter you seem to have. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

i'm not saying they are incompetent. not at all. they're well skilled people; and their work is notable. but when most other articles use last names; and there's one using first, that means it must have been a mistake. they're skilled people, but not supernatural. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A mistake of the level you are talking about is pretty definitive of incompetence. They use subsequent referral names that are appropriate to the material being described in the article and they are exemplars of correct use. It is much more likely that you are mistaken or really don't understand the principles of correct usage than that they made such a basic mistake in an area that they are expert in. As another exemplar see Cheers if you think Buffy is an outlier. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

so we ignore thousands of other articles using last and heed few that you've been searching for days? --HamedH94 (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

User:IJBall, WP:COMMONNAME is part of a policy about the title a articles. there is no dispute over titles. we're talking about the content. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The spirit of guidelines generally apply across Wikipedia. Ypou have to use some common sense here. If we use common names for article titles, why would we not apply them when referring to fictional characters? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

there's no argument over titles, which should be as clear as possibe. that means using captain america instead of steve rogers. but for the title. not the content. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly misunderstanding what is being written. We use common names for titles, so we should use common names for the content. To not do that makes little sense, especially when you are writing a plot summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

according to? --HamedH94 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Basic logic and reason and a good understanding of Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

none of which actually exist. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Demonstrated to exist, likely not being understood. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

there's been no demonstration. it's a claim without basis. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

...as well as commonsense. Unfortunately, that's something that can't be taught. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

commonsense needs a valid rationale that you fail to provide. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Cyphoidbomb, take a look at Captain America films articles, where cap is called "Rogers" not "Steve" or "Captain America". there are lots of articles like that. and the dispute is nothing new either. look at this one. --HamedH94 (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In the films, Steve Rogers is often referred to as Rogers,. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

they often call him steve or cap. rogers is not frequently used. the same can be said for iron man, who's called tony; but he is referred as stark in WP. and many other characters. --HamedH94 (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A quick search of transcripts shows that Steve Rogers is called Rogers or Steve with basically equal frequency (including instances where he's called "Steve Rogers"). Tony is more often called Tony, but he is also frequently called Stark; Stark is not uncommon or rare in reference to Tony Stark. At any rate, I can't speak for the reasoning of what other editors have done elsewhere. And, really, as far as what is done elsewhere, there are just as many examples of preference for a first name usage. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 13:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

download a subtitle from this site and search the words. you'll find much more results for the sole words "cap" and "steve" than "rogers". if it's about "often" then what you're claiming is wrong. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Cap is a nickname that Steve Rogers himself doesn't really use, so it really shouldn't be considered.

Captain America: The First Avenger - "Steve" or "Steven" (18), "Rogers" (20), note that both include "Steve Rogers" and other forms of his full name, "Rogers" includes "Captain Rogers" (for comparison, "Bucky" and "Barnes" appear five times each, "Peggy" appears twice and "Carter" appears ten times)
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - "Steve" (14), "Rogers" (23) (for comparison, "Natasha" appears 8, "Romanoff" appears 5)
Captain America: Civil War - "Steve" (14), "Rogers" (10), same note as above (for comparison, "Bucky" appears five times, "Barnes" appears eighteen, "Nat" appears twice, "Natasha" appears zero times, "Romanoff" appears four times, "Wilson" appears three, "Sam" appears fourteen).

Steve Rogers is referred to largely equally by both Steve and Rogers; and I feel that's a place where an editor or consensus can choose either because the names are used equally. However, there are characters, like Sam Wilson, who are referred to more by first than by last, but the article prefers to use last names. However, as I stated in my !vote, my position is actually to all a preference for first names as first name usage is not explicitly prohibited. My position is that because a character might be largely known more by a first name than a last name, an article be allowed to refer to them by first name. If a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on an article is to use last names for everyone for whatever reason--say in regards to the MCU articles, for consistency's sake--then I also argue that that is good too. I am arguing against a unilateral "last names unless this one specific exception" line of reasoning.

And, generally, for every example that prefers a last name usage, there is another article that uses a first name usage. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

these are the search results of a cap 3 subtitle i downloaded: steve (only) 14, rogers (only) 10, tony (only) 29, stark (only) 19, bucky (only) 5, buck (only) 3, barnes (only) 15, sam (only) 17, wilson (only) 2, natasha (only) 0, romanoff (only) 4. you see some characters are often called by last name, while others are by first. so clearly there is no connection. and your claim that they're mentioned by last names cos that's what they're often called is refuted. if you closely watch the film, characters are called by their first names when their friends are talking, but by last names when official figures, authorities or news reporters are talking, which is formal. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And I've said before and I've pulled for you before, for every article that prefers a last name, there is another that prefers a first name. I feel as if you're not reading anything I'm writing. At any rate, I'm going to drop out of the threaded discussion here because based on this little thread and all the other indented threads in this section, it's a repeat of the discussion in the section directly above this and everything stated at the DRN. I've already written close to 7,000 words on the topic about my position and about the whole applying dictionary definition to a whole style and everything else being discussed in this section right now. And I'm tired of going around in circles with HamedH94, so unless he pursues a new line of argument, I'm going to drop discussing with him. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Adult characters typically go by family names isn't necessarily true in my experience, unless last name is strongly preferred in the work and in writings about the character. The norm seems to be to generally prefer whatever name they're most often called in the work, though I've noticed your statement allows for that: unless a strong case can be made for 'commonname' other than within dialogue or amongst fans. At any rate, the norm doesn't strongly seem to be last name preference. Taking my survey from an earlier discussion, but a quick hopping around FAs, FLs, and GAs that I was familiar with, so I can definitively say whether or not the character is commonly called by last name or if there was a decision to use last name in spite of that. The method is flawed, so your mileage may vary.

Firefly (TV series) refers to Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds as Mal, Jayne Cobb as Jayne, and Inara Serra as Inara throughout, despite there being no need for disambiguation. (Note, Derrial Book is referred to exclusively as "Book" throughout the series, and so because that's his commonly used name, it's used.)
List of Uncharted characters - Regarding the major characters, refers to Elena Fisher and Chloe Frazer as Elena and Chloe. I'm not overly familiar with the series beyond the first one, but I know they're commonly called by first name, and Victor Sullivan is typically referred to as "Sully", and the article uses both "Sully" and "Sullivan". The article typically refers to Nathan Drake as his commonly used "Nate" or "Nathan", however there are other Drakes, especially Sam Drake.
List of Naruto characters - often uses first names
The Time Traveler's Wife - refers to Henry DeTamble as Henry and Clare Anne Abshire as Clare
The James Bond articles--Dr. No (novel), Casino Royale (novel), among many others--refer to "James Bond" as "Bond", but he is widely recognized by the name, and James is much more infrequently used.
Jack Sparrow - uses Sparrow (though, I'd personally argue "Jack" and "Sparrow" are used evenly to refer to him within the films and in third party usage, in my experience)
Fight Club (film) - first name usage
Casablanca (film) - Rick Blaine and Ilsa Lund referred to by first name. Victor Lazslo referred to by last name. Film largely refers to him sa Laszlo, rather than Victor. Louis Renault is also referred to by last name.
Pilot (House) - last name usage. the series near-exclusively refers to the characters by last name
Battlefield Earth (film) - Jonnie Goodboy Tyler, the only character with a last name, is referred to as Jonnie.
Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) - Donna Noble is Donna
Over There (Fringe) - Most characters are referred to by first name, except for William Bell. Note, there are two Bishops, Walter and Peter. This episode also deals with dopplegangers, but those have different "names" ("Fauxlia" and "Alt-Charlie")
Blade Runner - Rick Deckard is referred to by last name, but he's most frequently called "Deckard" and "Rick" is infrequently used
The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) - refers to characters by first name, with exception of Rupert Giles (who is commonly called by last name, with Rupert infrequently used). Note, there are three Summers women--Buffy, Dawn, and Joyce.
The Hunger Games (novel) - first names
Nikki and Paulo - Nikki Fernandez is referred to as Nikki. Note, Paulo has no known last name.
Tokyo Mew Mew and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters - refers to characters by first name.
Pilot (Parks and Recreation) - refers to characters by first name
Jabba the Hutt - refers to Han Solo as "Han", with the ocassional "Solo", "Luke Skywalker" is Luke (or referred to by whole name), Leia Organa is Leia
Palpatine - Considering Palpatine's first name didn't even exist until recently, he's called by last name. Other characters in the article: Anakin Skywalker is often mentioned just by first name (reintroduced in each section by whole name), Luke Skywalker is also referred to as Luke, though this is a case for disambiguation, so it's irrelevant. Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as Obi-Wan. Mace Windu is referred to as Windu, but he's never referred to as Mace in the films.
School Rumble - mixed usage, referring to some characters by first, others by last
Friends, Rachel Green, Monica Geller - main cast is referred to by first name, note that there are two Gellers.
Batman - interestingly, says usually "Bruce Wayne" often, with some examples of just plain "Wayne" (i.e. "In the 2009 miniseries Batman: Battle for the Cowl, Wayne's former protégé Dick Grayson becomes the new Batman, and Wayne's son Damian becomes the new Robin.") and just plain "Bruce" (" Having practically raised Bruce since his parents' death, Alfred knows him on a very personal level. He is sometimes portrayed as the only other resident of Wayne Manor aside from Bruce.")
Tom Swift - Like Batman actually too, calls the character "Tom Swift" almost exclusively, with occasion examples of just "Swift" ("Several inventions, including the Taser, have been inspired allegedly by Swift's fictional inventions.") or just "Tom" ("When his airship bangs into a tower, Tom is uncharacteristically nonplussed and needs support."[23] However, as the series progresses, Tom's inventions...")
Nancy Drew - Like the Tom Swift example
Jason Voorhees - Referred to as Vorhees, though note, Pamela Vorhees exists and is briefly mentioned (first as Pamela Voorhees, then as Pamela)
Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson - Referred to by first name, but there are other Simpson characters. Though, I generally argue as the main subject of their own article, it should be clear which character "Simpson" is referred to, but ymmv there as well.

As I said, I relied on what I was familiar with so I am familiar with what the character is called in-dialogue and whether or not that's had bearing on this, so there's a natural bias and flaw in this survey. But I still don't believe the norm in articles on fiction is to prefer a last name usage. Though, to restate because this is what basically started this whole lengthy discussion, and I just want to be as clear as possible (because I get nervous), I strongly believe if, say, the local consensus on Jabba the Hutt was in sudden total agreement to refer to all the other characters by last name, cool, awesome. I'm not advocating for a straw count of usage and ironclad use whatever is more often used. I just believe if a first name is more commonly used, it be recognized as a valid and permissible form of referred to the character that doesn't automatically break formal tone. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 13:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

'Use within dialogue' isn't an especially useful benchmark, in drama, as in RL, first names are more commonly used than in more formal text. Situations where family exist are necessarily first or both names. I didn't mean to suggest it was ONLY children's work that used first, merely that it appeared to be more common there. I personally prefer the more formal use unless a case can be made for deviating from it. In both RL and when writing about fiction, first name use implies an intimacy with the individual/character IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood the whole children's work thing, I apologize. I don't necessarily believe first name implies an intimacy with a character because by virtue of being fictional, there is no intimacy to be had. But, at any rate, it seems we agree it's a preference in style, and (to possibly overstep and risk putting words in your mouth) both used and preferred per local consensus and particular editors, as it seems to me. If you wish to strongly prefer last names, and the local consensus strongly agrees, far be it from me to overturn it. (lmao, though I think this particular case snowballed quite badly.) And, it's my opinion that this whole thing came about because one party felt to definitively restrict the acceptability of a certain kind of fairly used style (probably why it snowballed? I don't know), and now that we're a little ways into it, I'm not sure this RfC wholly captures that, but I'm not sure this particular subthread is the right place to be expressing that? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 13:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"I don't necessarily believe first name implies an intimacy with a character because by virtue of being fictional, there is no intimacy to be had." this is what you guys have been saying the whole time. and like other stuff, it has no basis. this MOS refutes that statement, since it does includes fictional characters to be treated from a real world perspective. but, again, you're gonna say that it should specify "using last names instead of first" that's why we've been going in circles. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A real world perspective doesn't negate the use of first names. The use of first names is not based on an intimacy of the character, but common understanding of how they are referred. They are not real people, so treating them as such would actually be against real world perspective. But arguing that they should be treated the same, you're basically saying that we should have their character pages reflected as though they were real. Full names, birthdates, family history, etc. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

the MOS mentions the phrase "frame of reference" which means, in this case, how a fictional character is mentioned. in fact, when we mention characters the way they're called in work itself, that's in-universe perspective, which is discouraged. so the fictional characters should be treated like real ones. and according to FORMAL, using last names as much as possible. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "fictional characters should be treated like real [people]" is truly in-universe. An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info. And the "frame of reference" phrase, in totality, emphasis theirs: Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information. It describes an approach the article as a whole entity, rather than the piecemeal approach you are taking. As always, I stand by people's preference and local consensus on any article to prefer last names despite whatever the work does, because it's a style preference. But, I object to the overly stringent restrictions you're placing on a style preference you do not prefer. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

you should take a look at the examples of in-universe to understand what it means. that's not even close to you guy's position. but, "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe , treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis." means how a character is called by another character, thus it's in-universe. do you still need it to exactly specify this instance? --HamedH94 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've extensively explained my position on this specifically to you, including by stating that my position also rests on secondary and tertiary sources and why I'm considering what a character is called in the work, and I've gone over multiple times how I read and interpret INUNIVERSE, and I'm not going to repeat myself directly to you for a fourth or fifth time. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: What case would you find compelling for use of first names over last? The general test we are normally using is to rely on what reliable secondary and tertiary sources do with respect to how they refer to names when they describe the show. In the case of the characters in question in this article, that leads to preference for first name referrals as last name referrals are rare in other works that cover this show and that is how people will know the characters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

secondary sources like academia had a problem that i extensively explained above. and from tertiary ones, you mentioned britannica, which uses last for most articles. but you managed to find few articles to the contrary, and you believe that they outweigh the others. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I know that examples from Britannica that prove you wrong are unpersuasive to you but I am asking for clarification from Pincrete here and am interested in what he has to say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma, COMMONSENSE is for exceptional situations and needs a rationale, which you didn't provide. COMMONSENSE can be used for when there are two or more family members; and first name is necessary for disam. --HamedH94 (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94: I cited COMMONNAME, a policy, not COMMONSENSE, an essay. You have slipped on a catachresis banana. So I do not need to provide a rationale for COMMONSENSE (capitalized, where it refers to WP:IAR). The common sense (uncapitalized, where it refers to every day linguistic usage) reason I don't need to is because my case wasn't built on citing COMMONSENSE whatsoever. My input was based on the use of common sense (every day usage) as a subsidiary adjunct to the explicit logical application by extension of the principles that underlie COMMONNAME policy. If anyone needs to explain themselves further, should the objective be to strive for consensus for their position, it would seem to me that you need to take the time to explain why COMMONNAME by extension, as well as all the other policies which have been deployed in this serial discussion by numerous editors and which collectively come to a coherent whole, do not apply. The false dichotomy of first versus last name, as if one or other were a rule, is a patent category error. If you notice, what RfC has highlighted in supporting COMMONNAME is that the community rule-based approach relies on multiple policies used properly. It is not based on selective endless manipulation where policies are placed in falsely forced opposition to each other, to force an answer to a false binary selection, and it's not based on misquoting policy or on dodging the issues. Absent a cogent argument that appropriately focuses and addresses over 95% of the RfC input, it is quite clear that we nearing a definitive end to this very long road. But I will also say this. Common sense (every day usage) doesn't need to be justified. It is a fundamental principle. It is above any policy. If you have issues with this, read the relevant page. It most certainly would be better in life to use some common sense and not reserve it for "exceptional situations". You are muddling WP:IAR with common sense. My input on this Laurel and Hardy problem is quite clear --> context determines usage. Sometimes, we are going to use last names (Laurel and Hardy: an article title, and also last names, that are used within the article when appropriate); Stan and Ollie: used within the article when appropriate. And let me say this too. I don't anticipate that further threaded exchange is going to change where we are collectively going to get to with this. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma, it makes even less sense to cite COMMONNAME, since it's about the title of articles, not the content. there is no argument over titles. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94: Well, the logic of what you have just put forward slips on yet another banana, by committing another false dichotomy category error. If you take care to review my input, you will notice I already anticipated and dutifully fully explained the answer to your "dilemma". It's right there if you look. You may also notice that it's not me, on my own, but the RfC input collectively as a series of individuals, who are confidently applying the common sense principles which underlie COMMONNAME, and which underlie every policy, which come together in a collectively coherent way, to all domains of the corpus. Of course, it's OK to miss that input or to dodge engagement with it. But I remind you that in my stated opinion the burden has now passed to you to provide a focused explanation of how you think a uniquely literalist reading of some policies (in an admittedly possible but nonetheless problematic way as to internal policy cohesion) merits our further consideration. Some editors have explained this in terms of "respecting sources"; others as "using the form that the reader would expect or anticipate", others for a myriad of collectively coherent (i.e. cogwheeling) reasons, and yet you still find room to take umbrage with every comment or suggestion by clinging resolutely to one possible reading of a subset of policy. I think taking a look at the article Laurel and Hardy makes the solution to this longstanding debate very clear. Thus, I suggest you look at it to discern what the editors collective thinking was when they used one or other form within the article. Common sense (every day use) and coherent broad application of the breadth of policy makes it quite clear that context determines usage. Sometimes, we are going to use last names, and yes, tone is a consideration, and yes, if no other factor pertains and we are left in equipoise between first or last (I imagine this isn't too common an event) we would be better using last. I would think that on reflection you will notice that this possible interpretation, which I am in good faith giving to you, of the policies which by contrast you are rigidly shaping and relying upon, achieves an internal consistency of policy, which is otherwise elusive. If the penny drops, I suggest it will be transparent that this is a key consideration, and helps us rationally decide which possible approach makes sense. I have made my points, as DRN and RfC have collectively, and I respect you as not hearing the message. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"the general principles of name selection do implicitly carry down logically to article content." do enlighten us what your rationale for that is. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

P.S. Geraldo Perez's question of Pincrete still stands, and is brought forward here as a courtesy to both these editors, rather than being lost to the interval distraction. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought that the idea behind an RfC was that 'local editors' put the choice/arguments, and RfC-ers responded in good faith, not that they got 'quizzed'. I see no reason why fictional characters should be treated any differently from real people, as a default position. Editors above say that one cannot have 'intimacy' with a fictional character. Of course one can't, just as one cannot have anything other than a bogus familiarity with anyone that one knows only through TV or other media. That does not alter the fact that using first name is implying such a familiarity. I cannot exactly delineate when it is apt to deviate from family name, but just as we refer to Presley or Winfrey, rather than Elvis or Oprah, despite these being used more frequently, I believe default should be family name. Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I am not an involved editor on this article either, just asking for more info. Why use Madonna and Cher instead of Ciccone and Sarkisian. Whether first or last for referrals - how should that be determined. I don't think there is any issue if a person is well-known by full name or last name to use last name for subsequent referrals, or with people known by a mononym to be referred to by that, just what test should we use to make a distinction when a full name is known but general use of the last name is rare, such as the case in this article. WP:COMMONNAME is the test used for article titles. Why not use something similar for referrals in other places? Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Madonna and Ciccone are sole known names, they are necessarily exceptions. I don't quite see how we apply commonname ALONE. Especially in the realms of popular entertainment and fan-nish media, use of first names is extremely common. I looked at 'The Beatles', after being named in full, they are therafter 'Lennon', 'Harrison' etc. I'm not being very helpful perhaps, beyond affirming that WP does not have to follow fan-sitey norms. To me a case would need to be made that 2nd name was almost unknown/unused. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Your points are spot on. Because context determines usage, and because sources are of better or lesser quality, a firm rule based on arbitrarily rigid reading of a subset of policy isn't helpful. It's completely counterproductive to normal editorial discretion and that would undermine the encyclopedia far more than providing the quality which is what is being sought by all editors. I 100% agree that it is important to tilt our collective hat toward the formal over the fan-based. I took the RfC as being asked 2 questions: whether at a general level there is an immutable single "tone" rule, and my answer is a clear unequivocal no; whether this article specifically should go one way or another, and my answer is it depends on the factors to be weighed, and in my opinion based on the totality of all that has been said, these factors have been weighed and discussed adequately, and the answer is status quo ante. As a passerby, I am ready to move on, because a preponderance of consideration has in my opinion definitively resolved this issue at both levels. I express the sincere hope that this process can be wrapped up within this RfC without much further ado. Thanks for your input which I appreciate. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

it's obvious that context determines usage; but you need to provide a rationale. when you want to interpret a policy, you do need to. what you've cited till now are only examples. but wikipedia isn't based on common law. if this mistake exists in other articles, then those should be modified too. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94: Very happy to discuss, of course. We seem to have broken the ice because you have newly conceded in a much broader way than before that "it's obvious" that context determines usage. Thank you for mirroring that concept back. I think that's really very helpful indeed because the rationale for the generally held viewpoint does to some extent rely on the observation that determination of usage by context is a crucial principle throughout all of article space, and context and weighing factors is pervasive throughout all the various policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. I would gently nudge you - there are no rational grounds on which to exclusively restrict this principle merely to situations with family names that need disambiguation. That is one circumstance we can all see. You have made that narrow concession before, but the logic of doing so broadly is generally applicable now that you agree that usage is "obviously" determined by context. There are other factors that could be relevant for a specific article. It depends on specific analysis: we need not list them pedantically or prescriptively, particularly as you have suggested avoiding further example based review. In the case of this article, despite your dismissing them, other factors have in fact been nicely addressed by other editors, but you have not felt their input was fully "logical". I think it would really help you if you make a Herculean effort to broaden your perspective and then take another look at their input. Either that, or edit lots of other articles, like the new movie article you added. That way, you will get some input on your own contributions and can then get a sense of what other people are dealing with too. By the way, I hope you have noticed that the importance of tone and of potentially using the last name in the event of otherwise general equipoise has had some support from several commentators above.

So, again, in detail: the rationale is that although WP:COMMONNAME explicitly applies to article names, as you correctly contend, by established convention as well as deductive logic, the principles of the policy implicitly apply by extension throughout article space. It is merely a matter of thinking things through practically and logically to see why. And others have also seen this and spoken to this (carefully read through above and DRN). I would suggest to you again that the "why" is partly the cogwheeling totality of the guidelines needs to be handled in a smoothly holistic way rather than overemphasizing one isolated aspect. Parachuting works best with a parachute... and a plane and all the other things as well. Maybe even gas in the plane to get off the ground. And a pilot. And an airport. All of it. Parachuting off your couch is kind of pointless! When you have edited here a lot in a lot of articles, seemlessly interweaving and balancing all of the guidelines really becomes somewhat self-evident and second nature (well, up to a point !). There have also been valid points made above about WP:TECHNICAL and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

Would I be a little too hopeful if you could see your way to finally getting to being willing to walk the same road as the whole community on this, by at least for now letting this issue of prioritizing formal tone by only using last names remain very important to you, just as tone in fact is to everyone else too, but please not be something you hold to monolithically and disproportionately in relation to other relevant factors (whatever they are for indidual specific articles)? I am happy to review further but be aware... I am ready with a prepared barrage of questions that put the shoe on the other foot (yours!) if we discuss this further, because it seems we are at the fork in the road where we can all agree to nicely coexist the way things are, seeing things in terms of different shades of emphasis within a big hat guideline and community framework, or you are going to have to work very hard indeed to explain your rationale in paragraph length detail (as we have in our responses to you) as to why status quo ante should be overturned! FeatherPluma (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

i never restricted "context determines usage" to family situation. there are other situations too. for example, oliver is a billionaire while he has an arrow alter ego. so in order to distinguish which one he currently is in, we need to use both "oliver" and the alias "arrow", although the second is against the formal tone, but context determines usage. this is what i mean by rationale. and about the points of previous editors that you mentioned, i like to remark what aussie said. he was concerned that readers might be confused because what they hear about a character and what they're called here are different. and i did state that there is a distinct characters section in the article using full names. we've discussed most of the concerns and i'm ready to discuss them again.

i don't understand how WP:TITLE "implicitly" includes content while its first sentence explicitly says "An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content and the basis for the article's page name and URL." seriously it has seemed a personal interpretation until now. if you believe it "implicitly" includes content, please mention the reason. and considering last names technical terminology doesn't make sense unless you explain the reason. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Off topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not related to the discussion, but when we post replies, can we please make sure that we know what we want to say before it's posted? 18 c/e edits in a row in the past two hours, blowing up both emails and watchlists, is a little bit ridiculous. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: That's not my personal style. Instead, I tend to try to think and edit and work on getting to a resolution with the other side. But you do have a good point. Actually it's a great point. It's a great point because I am sorry but I really do not know what you mean by blowing up emails and watchlists but I will find out sometime by keeping my eyes open. Apparently I am doing something I wouldn't want to do. But frankly I don't know what. So, hey, sorry I messed up the emails and watchlists somehow, it was inadvertent and it won't happen here again. Smile. Nevertheless, since I am cast as "ridiculous", and now feel completely "ridiculous", I feel much better just soldiering off back to my hovel. There's plenty of other happy things to do. Please take this issue on your collective backs. I don't need to stay where I am unwelcome and making a hash of things. Good luck. FeatherPluma (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

... What? Where did that just go? I said the actions were ridiculous, not any particular person. There's a reason why I'm not engaging in this discussion. But sure, if you want to escalate one simple request by falsely declaring yourself "unwelcome", by all means, go ahead. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

what i think alex meant is that you'd better click on preview and check the comment once or twice, maybe edit again and then save it. you review your comment after you save it, then you edit it again and again and... but every time you make a small change, it's counted as one contribution and a new email is sent. the page history shows you made dozens of contributions, most of which are kinda minor. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, understood about the email effect of multiple edits. I am well aware that I am responsible for the vast majority of these. It is quite ridiculous in some ways. Apparently this is a big deal for you, so I am fine withdrawing. 18 emails in a particular thread like this takes me about 3 seconds on the big heads up screen but you may have it set up differently. Yes, it would be great to have any input I contribute be done at one time and be done with it. But I am watching a slow running experiment that's bubbling along peacefully enough for now in the lab, but needs a stoking check every little while, editing my project notes, and also dabbling here as volunteer stress relief all at once, so I am unable to put it all out in one fell swoop. I am not escalating with anyone, I do feel unwelcome here because of the email effect, and no I am not accommodating to everyone's email set up, sorry. I am disengaging and going where the email thing doesn't apply. There is plenty to do elsewhere. FeatherPluma (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but after pondering, I confess that I don't relate. "Ridiculous" fails. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In the last 3 days there have been 113 entries in my watchlist from the 12 editors other than myself who have participated here. There have been a total of 696 entries in my watchlist meaning that this single discussion is responsible for 16% of the entries, while the average for the other 584 pages is 0.144%. By any measure, that's excessive. What I really find ridiculous though is that, at its most basic level, this discussion is simply about whether we should use first, last or common names to refer to characters in this article. Despite what appears to be an incredibly simple, and almost trivial, dispute, the discussion now takes up the vast majority of this page and, including the DRN and words on Bignole's talk page, currently stands at 28,000 words, all because one editor refuses to accept the opinions of 10 (I think that count is correct) other editors and instead prefers to disrupt the article by going around and around in neverending circles. At the end of the RfC, this threaded discussion will mean nothing and is most likely deterring other editors from joining. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: No problem. No problem at all. The entire RfC thread can be archived in 30 days or less, so nobody, NOBODY, is being driven off by the volume here. I'd even do it myself but I am going to be long gone. And yes the RfC threaded conversion is far too long but hey I was trying to get this thing completed with him. If some better time had been taken earlier the issue would have maybe been resolved earlier, who knows? Anyway, the only bugger being driven off is whoever whoever might like to edit with microedits because they like to think and then rethink and then rethink. You have your priorities and I am happy to oblige as mine is to Never find myself in Ugly WestWorld again. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

On reflection, if your issue is with microedits, I am very sorry but after careful reflection I do not relate. If your issue was to try to get this closed out, then the way to do that is to do that was by talking "with" not "at" or "through". FeatherPluma (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

@HamedH94: Please do not solicit additional input as I am done here as discussed. However, in final close out: I do not mean to imply that the title itself literally includes includes the content. Instead, what I mean is that the process of decision making for how the title is selected and how the article content is selected are not intellectually dissimilar. So policies that speak to how to approach one are often to some substantial extent extensible to the other. So "explicit" would be the domain (title or content, whichever one) where the policy or guideline is actually stated as applying, and "implicit" by contrast is the unmentioned domain. The extensibility is of course somewhat imperfect, as it's not explicit, but the convention is to accept that the principle or reasoning unpinning the policy would apply UNLESS there is a logical reason NOT to (i.e. it's not the other way, which is when you ask for why DOES it - you might be more comfortable reframing the question as "Why would it NOT?" ). The reason for this is that how we apply the "rules" has much the same "feel" throughout the encyclopedia. For the reasoning as to TECHNICAL, there is a nice layout above from Ten that makes what seems to me a very good effort at explaining things. I think I have answered your questions fully. I did have some questions for you but as I have explained I am completely unwilling to work on a page where several editors strong requests and time is devoted to complaining about how my edits relate to email numbers, and who characterize my editing style preference as ridiculous. It's just not a good fit for my style of working and I feel I am being driven off. I do notice that you have accepted the "context determines usage" in a way that seems much more "normative" than how things seemed to read at DRN. My sense is that you really could sign off on the hypothetical higher level question of whether all articles are always going to use last names - I think you would now probably be comfortable saying "no, not every article." As to this article, well frankly you know I want to see V for Vendetta but I doubt I will ever bother with this series, so I can't really say more other than what I saw in a very quick look at references seems OK with usage in the article - and the broad editor pool seems to know what it's about and I would suggest you kind of learn by copying them. FeatherPluma (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

since we comment on content, not the contributor, your intention not to continue doesn't mean we can't respond. you're misunderstanding the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME. it means that the title is the word(s) that an article is known by. when you wanna search something in the search bar, you type a character by their commonly known name. because when you're searching, you're not an editor, you're a reader; you may not even know the basic standards of an encyclopedia. you have heard of a comic character by their alias, not knowing their real name, and you're hear to learn about them. so you type "captain america" instead of "steve rogers". the page opens and you learn about the character. so it's obvious that the title should be something the reader is familiar with. but the rule doesn't apply to the content, cos as you start reading captain america's page, you see the name steve rogers in a bold format. now you know his real name. and when you continue reading, you'll know that by rogers, it means captain america. that's why the title is treated completely differently from the content. --HamedH94 (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

also, FORMAL encourages the use of formal tone for all articles; and it doesn't exclude fiction. the essay discourages colloquialism, which i interpret as using first names, aliases and nicknames This is what I mean by going around in circles. WP:FORMAL has now been mentioned 6 times, both as an argument and in rebuttals, and the misinterpretation of what constitutes a colloquialism has been discussed at length. We have one editor arguing the same points over and over regardless of the numerous rebuttals. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

if what you said is right and the threaded discussion will mean nothing at the end, i need to present my complete citations at the survey subsection, the only place the closer will look (according to you). --HamedH94 (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The closer ought to look at the entire discussion, including this section.
Editors who have commented about something being "just" an essay may want to look at WP:PGE.
Formal encyclopedic tone normally means "the style of writing used in other encyclopedias". The best citations for you would be finding articles about fiction in professionally published encyclopedias and seeing which names they choose. The second-best citations for you would be peer-reviewed academic works. For example, PMID 19591034 is a journal article that discusses two female fictional characters. If sources like that say "Buffy", then we should, too. If sources like that say "Summers", then we should, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.