Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > Middle names

Recently there has been a discussion about removing middle names from article titles, such as Tom Marvolo Riddle being changed to simply, 'Tom Riddle'. The original discussion can be found here. What does everyone think?--Matoro183 (Talk) 18:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We need a "Naming convention's policy" so as to avoid any future problems. I suggest we use the same policy Wookiepedia and Wikipedia use, which is, In the case of Alias vs Real name to always use a person's given birth name excluding titles and middle names. I think this policy is the best one. –K.A.JTCE 18:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the topics that I had planned to vote on in IRC if we ever had a meeting. Personally I'm all for full names (allowing the most unique article name). I'm a bit unsure about what to do with w/ maiden vs. married names. Also our policy is currently to use their "common" name -- its just not really written out what that means. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree wiki DarkJedi613 and think that married names should also be in the article name. Me_Potter_Fan (Talk) 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should use the policy KAJ mentioned - birth name excluding titles and middle names. One, because there is precedent in other wikis. Two, because it doesn't clutter article names. And three, because using married names in some cases calls the character by a name they have never been referred to as in the books (e.g. Hermione Weasley, Luna Scamander, etc.). However, I wouldn't object to using married names when that is how the character is typically/always known (e.g. Molly Weasley, Alice Longbottom). Oread 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In terms of married names...if a character is called by it then I would say use it, but if they're never called by it (Ginny Potter perhaps?) then don't use it. And I 100% agree about no titles in the article name. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay - on the middle name issue: As long as there is uniformality across the wiki, I'm okay with either option. However, I will say that, by including middle names, we will clear up a lot of the James Potter I/James Potter II debates since one will be at James Sirius Potter. On the married name issue: married names should not be in the article name, but should be refered to as their full name in the article introduction and infobox. Titles: absolutely no titles in article names for characters whose full name is known. However, a special case should be made for certain articles like Mr. Lupin, Mrs. Lupin, etc. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to be bold and propose a policy. The benefits of this policy is that it doesnt leave room for argument, so there will be no future scrapping about what articles should be called what. It's mainly my own invention plus some elements of Wookiee and Wikipedia.

Naming Conventions Policy

  • Alias vs Real name. Always use a persons full birth name, exluding titles and middle names

. E.g. Tom Marvolo Riddle vs Lord Voldemort = Tom Riddle full bith name as known minus middle name.

  • Given name vs Nickname. always use a persons full given name. E.g. Ron Billius Weasley vs Ronald Billius Weasley = Ronald Weasley. Full given name minus middle name.
  • Maiden name vs Marital name. Unless a canocial source states that a character changed their name after marriage then the maiden name should be used. E.g. Ginerva Molly Weasley vs Ginerva Molly Potter = Giverva Weasley. Full given name minus middle name and no source refers to her as Potter so maiden name is used instead.

Thats it I think. No stone is left unturned if we adopted this policy it would completely remove the problem about naming arguments. - –K.A.JTCE 10:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is better than it is now but we still should use middle names to make it the most unique and encyclopedic. Anyway according to that Ginny should be Potter since she was refered to as a Potter in the epilogue. Me_Potter_Fan (Talk) 10:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is she? Sorry I missed that, it should be Ginerva Potter then. But as for middle names, the article titles dont need to be unique they need to be enyclopedic and uniformed, adding middle names achieves the exact opposite by making them overly long and messy looking. As Oread said this is the precedent already well established on other wikis, middle names in article title clutter them up and make them look unprofessional. And as I ahve already said using middle names to establish between charcters who have the same name is rendered obsolete by the disambig pages. - –K.A.JTCE 11:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include middle names, and get rid of disambig pages.--Matoro183 (Talk) 12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think no middle names, and any marraige that took place during or after the series should NOT change the name in the article (for example, it remains Fleur Delacour, Nymphadora Tonks, Hermione Granger, but it changes to Lily Potter). -- Freakatone Talk 12:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How does middle names make it look unprofessional/unencyclopedic? I'd almost beg to argue the opposite. I like the rest of it -- although the wording of using a characters "full birth name" doesn't make sense to then say "exluding middle names".
Also one other comment about a "titles" -- do we all agree that "titles" are Mr., Dr., Mrs. Prof., etc. but not things like Jr. or Sr. or III, etc? (In other words I'm saying the Jr./Sr. should be included.)
The only stone left unturned is if two characters still have the same name...which would be handled by a disambiguation policy which I'm working on right now (its not up on any of my pages yet).
In terms of married names...if they're referred to it then it should be changed I think. The other option with married names is to do something like Ginerva Weasley Potter (but then you almost need to do that with like Molly Prewett Weasley...which is weird since she's never referred to as that). -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your opinion Freakatone that is ignoring Canon just because they are more commonly known as a certain name and our policy says that Rowlings word is law. I agree with DarkJedi613 about full names including middle names being better. It just makes more sense. Me_Potter_Fan (Talk) 05:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that Instead of having middle names, such as Tom Marvolo Riddle, instead, we could

put only the letter. For example, Tom Marvolo Riddle ~ Tom M. Riddle. Good Idea, Eh? HPZack147852369 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think Ginny's page should remain Ginny Weasley. She is referred to as one of the "five Potters" in the DH epilogue, so obviously her surname does change to Potter, but that's not comparable to, say, Molly Weasley or Narcissa Malfoy, who are always referred to using their married names. For the vast majority of the timeline covered by the books, she is Ginny Weasley. I think married names should only be used in our article names if they are used as character names in canon -- Bellatrix is always called Bellatrix Lestrange; Hermione is never called Hermione Weasley.
On another subject though, are the article names going to use characters' full names even if they usually go by a dimunative (e.g. Ronald vs. Ron, Ginevra vs. Ginny)? My assumption would be that Percy, Bill, and Charlie are also diminutives, but it's never been confirmed. Oread 23:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that's what KAJ was trying to go by when he said "Full names" meaning that it would be "Ronald" but if its never confirmed that Bill is short for William I'd say that we'd have to use "Bill" still. What do you think? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Bill is short for William - it's stated during his wedding vows. However, there is no evidence that Charlie is short for Charles, and Percy is apparently not Percival since his full name was stated as Percy Ignatius Weasley during Harry's trial in OotP. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 15:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, well then use Charlie as my example and not bill. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently I see a few different "fields" we're discussing:

  1. Whether to use full names ("Ron" vs. "Ronald")
  2. Whether to use middle names (or middle initials)
  3. Whether to stick with last names used throughout the series or married names or some combination thereof
  4. Whether to include Jr., Sr. III, etc.
  5. What to do about characters where first name is unknown (i.e. Mr. Lupin)

Are there other situations we need to discuss? In other words I'm just trying to figure out everything we need to discuss before continuing. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's it. I'd like to clarify a few points that have come up since my abscence though. Ginny Weasley's article should be at Ginerva Potter, because although noboady calls her that, the book is still a canon source and it refers to her as One of the Potters. I would disagree with using initials though, simply because it is unnesesary. DarkJedi you asked why using middle names makes unprofessional. well I have already said the main reason is beacuse it makes the titles overly long. This is even more of an issue in the Harry Potter world where Wizards seem to have exeptionaly long names anyway, and like Oread said this is precedent established on nearly every other major wiki, I know we dont have to follow suit but I think it makes sense to listen to those who are older and wiser. Also I agree with using Sr, Jr (II), (III) etc because we need to establish between characters with the same names without using middle names. I'm against using Mr and Mrs though. If this were Wookiepedia those articles would be, Remus Lupin's mother and Remus Lupin's father, which I think is better because we dont need to break the no titles thing, and because those character's were never actually called Mr and Mrs Lupin anyways. Well I've had my rant, are we going to vote on a policy. - –K.A.JTCE 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with using "So-and-so's mother" vs. "Mrs. So-and-so". Regardless of using middle names or not the article name would be the same for a Jr./Sr. (To be a Jr. even the middle name is the same). We will not vote yet. I think some more discussion is needed. But soon. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think Ginny's should stay Ginny Weasley.--Matoro183 (Talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Why?. There is no reason for it to stay the same because we know she changed her name to Potter. - –K.A.JTCE 08:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Totaly agree KAJ anyone who says otherwise is going against canon in my opinion. Me_Potter_Fan (Talk) 08:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Also back to the middle names thing, we cant use middle names to distinquish between characters with the same name all the time, because we dont know all the characters middle names. Like Barty Crouch for instance. We dont know Crouch Jr's middle name, so we'd be inventing a policy only to break in when we dont know a characters middle name, if they made sense, basically just another reason why we shouldnt use middle names. Also on the subject of Barty Crouch if we do go with my policy both Jr and Sr need to be moved to Bartameius, and Ludo Bagman to Ludovic Bagman etc...I can't think of anything else to discuss, my policy definately needs fine tuning though. –K.A.JTCE 10:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay Ginny Weasley without a second thought. For middle names, either way is fine by me. Nicknames should be used in article titles, because that is what they are more commonly known as. I would also keep it as Mrs. Lupin, because to me, that is more encyclopedic than "Remus Lupin's mother", and they both mean the same thing. That's all I have to say, and I hope the voting page comes up soon! -- Freakatone Talk 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesnt matter what they are most commonly known as but what they are most recently known as, by the end of the series Ginny is now longer Ginny Weasley but Ginny Potter, calling her something she is not is completely inaccurate and defeates the entire point of a Wiki, and more to the point it's non canon. As for nick names they are not there real names so why call them that. As for the Mr Mrs thing, how is calling someone something they are never known as, more encyclopedic?. - –K.A.JTCE 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
KAJ, you said yourself that article titles don't need to be too long. What would you say about having a Remus Lupin's Mother? That's a much longer title than Mrs. Lupin.--Matoro183 (Talk) 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
But Mrs Lupin is non canon becuse she is never called that plus it violates no titles, the leangth of the titles is only one of many reasons not to use middle names, and as far as I can see there are no good reasons for doing so. –K.A.JTCE 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Want to clear up one of my previous statements: The point of the middle names is not to make unique article names, its a convenient side effect. I agree that full names should be used (that is definitely more encyclopedic and more canon). I like "Remus Lupin's mother" (notice the capitilization) better than "Mrs. Lupin" because it is more specific, Mrs. Lupin could be Remus' mother, wife, grandmother, etc. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok my point about middle names appears to be falling on deaf ears, so I'm going to drop it and support the inclusion of middle names just to move this thing forward. In my opinion all our character names should be their full unaltered birth name' except when a person is married and changes their last name, and some needed additions like Jr Sr etc, no titles nick names or alias's whatesoever. That's my opinion. –K.A.JTCE 09:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder would such a policy would apply to actors as well, if so Gary Oldman's article should be Gary Leonard Oldman etc. –K.A.JTCE 09:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that you have changed your mind. :-) Me_Potter_Fan (Talk) 09:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say actors have no middle names. -- Freakatone Talk 11:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I still don't agree with middle names, but some one has to give some ground, otherwise we will be here forever. Also I would have thought the policy would affect all individuals real and fictional. –K.A.JTCE 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole thing has gotten pretty off topic, there will always be a few tough calls within any blanket rule, and that following along with what Wookiepedia and Wikipedia does help those of us that are new here know how to find what we're looking for and to help with editing easier. LilB 19:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We're just discussing different possibilities, I don't particularly feel like that's off topic. In response to KAJ. No one really has to give ground since we're going to vote on it -- vote on what you feel is better. (I'm going to open the voting probably tomorrow if you're wondering.) -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Vote on the talk page. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting is now closed, who's going to write the policy up? –K.A.JTCE 12:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, voting isn't closed until midnight eastern time. But yeah, who is going to write the policy? -- Freakatone Talk 12:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Right there is still...13 hours, 57 minuts to vote from my watch. ;) And I'll write up the policy page afterwards (I mean its pretty much just putting the categories into sentences)...but yeah. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, voting is now closed. This policy needs to be written up so the needed changes can be made. –K.A.JTCE 08:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I will do it later tonight/tomorrow. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 16:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what I've come up with so far. Please edit below this comment (above the policy -- we'll keep that at the bottom of the page). I'm gonna add it in a couple days, so if you have any suggestions please make them (but please only make minor edits directly to the text). -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to Policy

To be added as a new category ("Naming") under the "Style" heading

Article naming of a character or person will, wherever possible, abide by the following conditions:

  • An article's title should contain the full first and last names
    • For example: Use Ronald Weasley instead of Ron Weasley or Ronald Bilius Weasley
  • An article's title should contain the last name used through out the Harry Potter series, regardless of marriage.
    • For example: Use Ginevra Weasley instead of Ginevra Potter
    • For example: Use Molly Weasley instead of Molly Prewett
  • Tiles are not to be used in an article's title
    • Titles include: Mr., Mrs. (and derivatives)
    • For example: Use James Potter's father instead of Mr. Potter