Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-21 Street Fighter character articles/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 My contibution to this debate 2 Moving towards middle ground 3 Other notes 4 Respond by Jonny2x4 5 Response to Kung Fu Man by Mr.bonus 6 Response to Jonny2x4 by Kung Fu Man 7 Response by Mr.bonus 8 More words 9 Another opinion 9.1 Another point 10 Another response 10.1 Avoiding brackets 11 Compromise positions 12 Stumbling towards a decision 12.1 SUMMARY 13 Response to positives and negatives 14 Common Name 'litmus tests' 14.1 Too many dang colons 15 Binomial nomenclature 16 Observation of CardFighters DS trading cards 17 My proposed guidelines 18 Observation of a more authorative source 19 Be all and end all 20 Why are you discussing about names? 21 Consensus? 21.1 Let's end this. 22 Another potential situation

[edit] My contibution to this debate

I believe Mr. Bonus is trying to do the best for these articles overall. I've had a look at the arguments in E.Honda's page and agree that most pages should be named after common names, as I have never heard many of the names in general use - people do tend to say 'Ken out of Street Fighter' or 'Cammy off street fighter' - if somebody said Sean Matsuda people would respond by asking who was being referred to. The surnames in SF (and certain other games) really are only useful for additional biographical information. The characters are referred to as one name almost exclusively (and by Capcom themselves) and the page titles ought to reflect this.

There seems to be a kerfuffle over thinking the page titles will be inconsistent but this is only the case if you're only looking at fighting games (or just 'games') pages. Througout wikipedia everything else seems to be named correctly - as what everyone generally refers to it as or what it is officially known as.

A good example being X2 (film) - Everybody knows it is actually X-Men 2, but this is its common given name, rather than its full name, and its page is named as it should be.

In the website Discogs, the editors have spent the time to perfectly label each entry. For example - 'M. Rodriguez' is one of the artists with obvious name shortening, but he is still listed as this. His real first name may be 'Mike' but that isn't this artist's name. If there was another 'M. Rodriguez' whose first name was 'Mark', Discogs would just denote that he was the second by placing (2) next to his entry and wouldn't actually list either of the artist's full names as the entry name.

In the most understandable sense Ken is the character's 'ring name'- Ken Masters is a name that may apply to certain aspects of this fictional character's life; but we don't see any of this. Ken is the only name that pertains to the totality of the time we, as the audience, see or hear about him - in the ring. Where he is only ever referred to as simply Ken.

Edmond Honda - part of the problem people seem to be having with this is that they can't understand Mr.Bonus' argument - this user isn't stating that Edmond isn't his name - which many of you seem to have tried arguing. The point that needs to be understood here is that Edmond is AN official name, but it's not THE official name. The name 'E. Honda' has been used loads of times (in various places - player select, instruction manual, arcade game flyer etcetera) throughout the times the character has officially appeared in a game (around 10 times). This would add up to something like 50 times that the name has been used officially in total. The number of times Capcom have referred to him as 'Edmond Honda' totals 1 (Alpha 3 bio - which is the same place that Capcom call Zangief; Red Cyclone).

You wouldn't have Zangief's page title as 'Zangief (Red Cyclone)' as a way of utilising one of his other official names and imparting extra information in the title itself.

And as another argument against using full names as page titles in these cases; It would be the equivalent of having 'Marjorie Simpson' as Marge Simpson's page name - it sounds wrong, because it is, and this would be exactly the same as having the page titles as 'Ken Masters' or 'Edmond Honda'.

Dan Lander 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving towards middle ground

With left and right boundaries defined it looks like we're plodding towards a middle ground everyone can accept. So far we've agreed:

• The characters' in-game names are the most common
• The Bison/Vega/Balrog tangent has been laid to rest
• Articles should mention characters' full, correct names with kana regardless of what name is on the title
• Redirects should exist for the names not used as article titles

Small, peripheral debates are being knocked off so we can concentrate on the red meat. We're getting there!

X2 vs. X-Men 2

The movie's official title is "X2: X-Men United"; the incorrect "X-Men 2" redirects to X2 (film). The disambiguation page for X2 is also longer than some articles. With that said, I agree that X2: X-Men United would be unwieldy.

There seems to be a kerfuffle over thinking the page titles will be inconsistent but this is only the case if you're only looking at fighting games (or just 'games') pages.

The scope of this discussion is WikiProject: Computer and video games; we are only looking at games for now. Fighting games provide the best bait for the real name vs. abbreviated common name debate because of the sheer number of them, the supplementary materials (mainly manga) based on their characters and their large, consistent fanbase.

For every anecdote and 'example article' article one side finds, the other will debunk it and find two others. Maybe it would be better to restrict examples to pages in this WikiProject, since they're the ones with which this new standard will eventually have to agree?

Edmond is AN official name, but it's not THE official name

Bingo. There's more than one official name and, since they both come from Capcom, neither of them carries any more "officialness" than the other. That forms the substance of this debate: with no name being demonstrably better, there's no hard & fast rule to go by when deciding on the most-correct article title.

It would be the equivalent of having 'Marjorie Simpson' as Marge Simpson's page name

My Motumbo and Bart Simpson comments tried to address this. We need to strike a balance between correctness, accessibility and distinctness from other article names. Distinctness and accessibility can be solved, in part, with disambiguation; an incorrect title is something the disputants will not abide.

Ken is the only name that pertains to the totality of the time we, as the audience, see or hear about him - in the ring. Where he is only ever referred to as simply Ken

Yup. See the comments leading into my first suggestion (a.k.a. "The right boundary").

KelvSYC raises two good points though:

• "Lee" who? Disambiguation pages are already way too long, and inflicting that experience on someone is something we'd all like to avoid.
• Where would Jin Saotome fit in? Jin (Street Fighter) is wrong because to my knowledge he was never in a SF title, Jin (MvC) is technically correct but inadequate because that's not his first appearance, and Jin (Cyberbots) is technically correct but Cyberbots' fanbase doesn't compare to SF's. This means the more-common name of "Jin" is lost in a mess of disambiguations by tagging him with a game that probably isn't the one that inspired the search.

How do you propose standardising the parenthetical disambiguations? (Video Game Character) for characters with unique names and (Name of First Appearance) for characters with common names? Some characters' binomial names were mentioned in their games so giving their articles full-name titles is a slam-dunk; is the inconsistency between those article titles and these ones so small that it's not worth addressing? I ask because someone eventually will ask why Terry Bogard and Genjuro Kibagami get their names in lights and Ken (Street Fighter) gets the bracket treatment, and I'd like this WikiProject to be armed with a better answer than "That's our style guideline, suck it up". It could even go a step further in the other direction and prescribe single names across-the-board, arguing (perhaps correctly) that we still call these characters by their first names because that's what we do in our culture.

My first suggestion was based on the idea that Name (Game name) is an intuitive search term that could lead to the article either way, sacrificing correctness for accessibility. The second suggestion proposed that typing in "Kyo Kasanagi" to hit a redirect that points you to an article about "Kyo (King of Fighters)" that describes Kyo Kasanagi would be counter-intuitive.

There are a lot of reasons floating around on both sides but it boils down to accessibility versus correctness. We've agreed that the short names are accessible and the long names are correct. "We can disambiguate with hard redirects" isn't an answer because it doesn't address the complications caused when trying to link to a page with a non-intuitive name without being able to see it.

That leads us to the disambiguation problem: Does the volume of other people and things with titles that could conflict with these characters' common names (essentially a shortcoming of the online format) justify an end-run around both guidelines and WP:NAME? If it doesn't then the "full names" side would appear to have a problem, since the rest of the arguments presented so far concern:

• Scholarly correctness at the expense of accessibility - a tendency not supported by WP guidelines;
• Consistency with other game characters in this Wikiproject - a problem solved by a quick pronouncement in the style guide demanding common names; and
• The inherent hassles of disambiguation.

Back to you, Kung Fu Man.

Flakeloaf 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other notes

After a little bit of searching, it has seemed that other WPs are themselves inconsistent - Futurama, for instance, had, at one point, parenthetical disambiguation for main characters (eg. Fry, Leela, Bender) and binomial names for the minor characters (eg. Hermes, Amy, Farnsworth) - something to me is counterintuitive, which has been a source of edit wars. Other series have it the other way around, but for a lot of them binomial nomenclature is used.

On the topic of parenthetical disambiguation, we do also have to do a little nitpicking: The name "King" refers to at least two different fighting game characters. For the female King, she could be a character from any one of two different series - after all, Art of Fighting is her "home series", but she has more appearances in KOF. The compromise (saying that she is an SNK character) is rather counterintuitive by the above, right?

Also consider that a lot of "big-name" characters include a template listing the game franchise's entire roster (eg. SF characters include a template that has links to all other SF characters, same thing with KOF, while Tekken has an article that links to such a list). With such a template, is it even necessary to put short names in the title, given that one click gets to the desired article?

A similar debate to be looked at is how professional wrestlers are to be titled in articles about them. WP:PW is split into two camps, one in favor of using their best-known ring names while the other is in favor of using real names (marky vs. smarky as I call it). This can create various issues (Sean Waltman currently wrestles under his real name, but is better known by any number of ring names, while few are familiar with Andre the Giant's real name...). This debate is sort of kind of like that debate there, so the outcome of this case could very well dictate large portions of WP policy.

kelvSYC 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respond by Jonny2x4

I'm somewhat torn between the two. On one hand, there are characters whose full names are somewhat well-known enough to put as the article's actual name. On the other hand, some of these are rather obscure or based completely on conjecture. Instead of discussing the subject as a whole, I'll discuss each name individually.

• Ken Masters - Don't mind this one. It's true he's simply referred to as Ken in many games and at one point he was even referred as "Ken Andrews Asakura" (if the Japanese Wikipedia is correct), the full name Ken Masters has been used often enough (in film versions, official character descriptions and even some in-game dialogue) to be recognizable enough IMO. I prefer Ken Masters over Ken (Street Fighter).

• E. Honda - Completely indifferent about this one. E. Honda is a unique name enough by itself, but I don't mind using Edmond Honda as the article's title either. I prefer E. Honda myself though for some reason.

• M. Bison - The initial lost its meaning the moment they rotated the characters' names and even though Capcom has come up with several possible meanings for the "M" (Master, Mister, ect.), they've all been inconsistent with each other. On a related note, since this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia (as opposed to the Japanophile Wikipedia), the names used by the English localization of the series should take precedence over their original Japanese names (regardless of the designers original intentions).

• Cammy White - I've only seen it used in the Street Fighter II anime and perhaps in the Cammy Gaiden manga. IIRC, Cammy White is only psuedonym adopted by the character than an actual full name. Cammy is a unique enough name by itself that it doesn't need a full name to disambiguate it.

• T. Hawk - Don't really care one way or the other. I prefer T. Hawk, but don't mind Thunder Hawk either. Ironically enough the shortened form of the name is more unique in this case than the full name. Go figure.

• Dan Hibiki, Karin Kazzuki and Sakura Kasugano - Like Ken Masters, all three full names had been used often enough in official sources to be recognizable.

• Rolento F. Schugerg - Don't like this one. It's a fullname only used in a promotional flyer for Zero 2 in Japan (the Secret Files were often filled with nonsense anyway) and never mentioned again. Rolento is already a unique name by itself.

• Maki Genryusai - Similar to Rolento as above, but not as annoying. He's only be referred by a full name in an obscure Japanese source and by a single name everywhere else.

• R. Mika - Like T. Hawk and E. Honda, it's already a unique name in either, its commonly used shortened form or its full form.

• Cody Travers - He's been called Cody during all of his fictional existence up until Final Fight Streetwise, when the designers decided gave him a full name. Cody Travers is not a commonly used or popular fullname. I prefer Cody (Final Fight).

• Yun Lee and Yang Lee - Complete conjecture. I know they been referred as the "Lee Bros." in the ending text, but that doesn't neccesarily mean that Lee Yun and Lee Yang are their respective full names. Chinese full names are often comprised of three characters. The whole Lee Bros. thing seems to be merely an attempt to tie the twins with the obscure SF1 character.

• Hugo Andore - Complete conjecture again. Although Hugo is definitely Andore from the original Final Fight or at least heavily based on him, he's never been referred by such a full name.

So that's my two cents. I have no strong preference over one format or the other, but if I have to choose, I would prefer sticking to shortened/more commonly used names over full names.Jonny2x4 05:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Kung Fu Man by Mr.bonus

This isn't a games forum.

Your mistake is in making this personal - you have more of a problem with me than my idea for bettering wikipedia.

I'm trying to edit Wikipedia in favour of general users over experts.Mr.bonus 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary I don't care who you are: my problem is with the fact you plug your point of view into too many of your changes. Regardless, my personal opinion of you isn't up for debate, and I do think Rolento would be a better article name than his full one. Now if you'll excuse me so I may respond to Jonny2x4...--Kung Fu Man 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Jonny2x4 by Kung Fu Man

Agreed with your statements save for a few grounds: -Maki: Genryusai is the last name of her father warranting a little significance given he's only called "Genryusai", and does help prevent some confusion from the KOF Maki or any other Maki, as the name is common enough to be bothersome. -Yun/Yang: The surname would prevent the need for disambiguation. Also, Lee is stated in All About Capcom to be their uncle, so that wasn't a cheap trick on capcom's part. --Kung Fu Man 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I'd still push for the Edmond Honda and similar situation thing though, so basically waiting for your response for this.--Kung Fu Man 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification. Lee is not exactly Yun and Yang's uncle. They have an unclarified family relation, so he could easily be an older cousin or something as he could be their uncle. But I disgress.

There's never been any instance where Yun and Yang are refered by any fullname and Chinese fullnames are normally three characters long. So Yun Lee and Yang Lee doesn't exactly sound right.

Also, the difference between Maki Genryusai from FFight2 and Maki Kagura from KoF is that Maki Kagura has her full name in her lifebar, whereas the only time Maki Genryusai was ever referred by a full name was in a Japanese instruction book/strategy guide. Not many people would know her full name by playing the games themselves.Jonny2x4 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact it's kinda stated outright her father's name is Genryusai wouldn't be a big hint to that? o.O As for the Lee thing: that's not an assumption there, it's stated. The main assumption that was going on was the grandfather mentioned in their bio gets confused a lot for either Lee or Gen. As for the names not being chinese I really don't know what to tell you: maybe capcom didn't exactly think it through? We do have guys like Edi. E for example.--Kung Fu Man 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Mr.bonus

"and I do think Rolento would be a better article name than his full one." Kung Fu Man

So remember this and please do not use consistancy as a stance from now on.

I don't understand how there are people who disagree with my proposal of using common names. Why does it bother anyone that the page title doesn't list the full name? The full name is listed right beneath the page title and forms the first sentence in the first paragraph. It isn't like I am arguing to omit this information completely, which many of you seem to be arguing against.

I know that 'Dohma' is Jedah's official last name - but I am strongly opposed to having the article title relate this trivia to users. Even though these names are far too un-common to use as titles, they are still valid and should be given in the biography section (first paragraph).

My proposal is only in accordance with almost every other Wikipedia article's format anyway. The only troublesome page titles I've spotted throughout wiki are concerning games and other cult subjects. Wrestling has been mentioned as an example, but this is a far more compicated situation than this. As wrestlers often go by other names than their most common one - you can't call Sean Waltman's page 'X-Pac' even though this is the name most people will have heard of because he hasn't performed under it since the early 2000s.

Fans of certain genres (such as games) seem to me to be guilty of using Wikipedia's article titles as a way of showing off their knowledge on a particular game series. For example - if Alex from Street Fighter III was suddenly given a surname, his page would be renamed within seconds of the name being published. When people found out that Wolverine's name was 'James Howlett' people didn't try to change his page title and render article named Wolverine (comics) as a mere redirect, but if this was a game character this silly situation seems likely. People didn't try to rename Skeletor's page Keldor when his previous existence became apparent, but this did happen with Soul Calibur's Lizardman.

It was Dan Landers' who said (regarding the name Edmond Honda) "it's AN official name, it's not THE official name", and that's exactly it. I disagree with someone else's comment about them "both being official and one name not having any more significance than another" - Of course it does. E.Honda is his marketed name and Edmond Honda is a name that offers extra information. It's like arguing that the Wii's page should be called Nintendo Wii. It isn't the official marketed name even though it gives people more information and it may have been referred to as such by certain people.

Similar examples that conform with my suggestion -

Article Name: Courteney Cox - First paragraph: Courteney Bass Cox Arquette

Article Name: Jessica Alba - First paragraph: Jessica Marie Alba

Article Name: Will Young - First paragraph: William Robert Young

Article Name: David Tennant - First paragraph: David John McDonald

Article Name: Prince (musician) - First paragraph: Prince Rogers Nelson

Article Name: Madonna (entertainer) - First paragraph: Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie

Article Name: Akon - First paragraph: Aliaune Damala Bouga Time Puru Nacka Lu Lu Lu Badara Akon Thiam

If this is the accepted format across Wikipedia, then game character's page titles shouldn't be any different.

Mr.bonus 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but hold your horses here a minuite: the point of this is a mediation so people can agree on something, meaning it probably won't be as consistent as everyone would like but would keep everyone happy. And again with the inaccurate stuff simply because so and so said something that went along with your point of view: that's not how these articles are supposed to work Bonus. It's accurate names, which is not E. Honda. That section from that one mook I posted in your talk page shows even the name has a purpose and has been around since SF2 was even being cooked up.--Kung Fu Man 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your wolverine example doesn't hold much water though: this and someone sticking to a name for themselves over their given one are two different matters.--Kung Fu Man 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • My point was that users who edit game pages think that using Aeon Calcos as Lizardman's page is OK, when it clearly isn't. It's exactly like naming Superman's page Kal-El as it is his actual name. This just shows the errors that are often allowed to stand on game page titles. And as for 'accuracy' in names - try telling Capcom that E. Honda is not an accurate name when they use this name every single time they refer to him (bar one). If SNK can fit Takuma Sakazaki below an energy bar then Capcom could put Edmond Honda. But they never have. How many times do you want me to say that E. Honda is a far, far more common name that Edmond Honda? You seem to be the only person who has a problem with this after all this time.

Whatever is listed on the player select/underneath the energy bar OR is announced by the game announcer whenever a character wins then THAT is the character's common name. Any other name they may have been given is trivial information.

My other concern is how you have to phrase everything in an antagonistic manner - almost everything you say is said in a cheeky way - hold your horses - wait just a minute etc. This is completely un-called for and the mediator needs to recognise that you are treating this debate as you would treat a forum topic. One of my previous comments was noted as not being civil, but that's because you had pushed me to it, by getting away with responding in this way throughout this debate. Just make your points without the discourteous attitude. Mr.bonus 18:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More words

So remember this and please do not use consistancy (sic) as a stance from now on.

I'm pretty sure nobody wants to handle this on a case-by-case basis - that's a disasterpiece waiting to happen. Unless everyone agrees otherwise, I'd say every character should follow a clearly-defined set of rules. These rules will have exceptions and exceptions to those, but an articulable standard is preferable to a thousand separate discussions, all of which would invariably be bringing up the other articles to strengthen their case. That's how E. Honda spilled in here in the first place.

Why does it bother anyone that the page title doesn't list the full name?

Why does it bother people that it does? One of the arguments that keeps surfacing from the "common names" side of the fence is the contention that the full names are the treasure of an overzealous fandom (to put it diplomatically). This argument assumes bad faith without apparent basis and should probably be abandoned or restated. Nobody is ridiculing anyone for not being familiar with the full names. As stated earlier, Wikipedia is here to inform. That argument also has its limits, which we're exploring in this discussion.

The common name side would do well to argue that these names are more difficult to find by searching and in the page index than by claiming those who prefer these names are being pedantic for its own sake.

On the opposite side, the fandom needs to realise that not everyone is familiar with these names, and that steps should be taken to connect readers with the articles while remaining aware of this fact and Wikipedia's limitations.

Sean Waltman vs. X-Pac

There's no consistency there either. Who is Terry Bollea?

Fans of certain genres (such as games) seem to me to be guilty of using Wikipedia's article titles as a way of showing off their knowledge on a particular game series.

I prefer to think of it as a struggle between correctness and accessibility. It's not restricted to any specific genre, this discussion is being repeated all over Wikipedia. That's why WP:NAME and WP:NC are a bit fluid right now, and other subprojects' style guides have risen to fill the void.

I disagree with someone else's comment about them "both being official and one name not having any more significance than another"

Good, because that's not what I said: I said neither was more official than the other. There's no dispute as to which name is more common.

Similar examples that conform with my suggestion

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We're more likely to find a solution if we confine this discussion to articles within the genre. Each side could fill volumes with other articles that conform to their proposed standard.

It's accurate names, which is not E. Honda.

E. Honda is accurate. It's just not the most accurate option we have available. On the upside, it's the most accessible.

It's exactly like naming Superman's page Kal-El as it is his actual name.

I just finished saying out-of-genre examples weren't a very good idea, but that is a good example of correctness vs. accessibility. Of Clark Kent, Kal-El and Superman, two should be redirects, but which two?

Any other name they may have been given is trivial information.

Trivial, but correct.

My other concern is how you have to phrase everything in an antagonistic manner

"Wait a minute" is antagonistic? If you think other users are baiting you, it may be better to take it up with them on their talk page where others are less likely to be distracted from the discussion at-hand.

that's because you had pushed me to it

I'm not addressing this and neither is anyone else.

To review

• Everyone seems to agree the in-game names are both correct and more common
• The names provided by Capcom are, by definition, also correct
• The common names conflict with the names of other people and things
• The uncommon names have accessibility issues

Unstoppable force vs. immovable object? I don't think so; there is middle ground here but it will involve compromise from both sides. Flakeloaf 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another opinion

I'd just like to jump in and say that I also support the use of full (fictional) names in article titles, as long the full name isn't speculation. I don't even understand the debate for using only the shortened name. Yes, people generally only call characters, or people in general, by their first names. That's just how names work. I thought it was somewhat of policy to avoid using (parentheses) in article titles though. The use of the full name serves as better disambiguation in my mind. Though my one exception would be for Mario Mario...--SeizureDog 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another point

The issue only seems to be with characters from fighting games, but there are plenty of other characters from other genres that could be considered. Jill Valentine, Aerith Gainsborough, Sarah Kerrigan to name three. In-game, they are usually referred to as just "Jill", "Aerith", and "Kerrigan". I don't see why fighter characters should be an exception. --SeizureDog 00:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This might not be applicable with Jill, since she has their full names mentioned alot in both of her major appearances and in the film she was in. Hell, Jill's full name is mentioned in the original game's intro. Likewise, the name Aerith Gainsborough seems to appear alot in official merchandise of the game. Jonny2x4 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another response

Why does it bother anyone that the page title doesn't list the full name?

Why does it bother people that it does?

I for one am bothered by full names as article titles as it is stating extra trivia in the wrong place and also confusing users (such as myself). I remember looking at the Raphael Sorel page a while back (before there was an image) and wondering if I was in the right place, as I had never heard of any Sorel. I had to read the first line to see that it was the character from Soul Calibur. Yes, it only took about 5 seconds, but the character's page should be instantly recognisable. The title should be the name all people are familiar with (ie - Rolento - not Rolento F. Shugerg), and if the character's name is not unique, then the brackets should be at the end saying what game they are from (ie - Rock (Soul Edge) - not Nathaniel Rock Adams). I always knew who Xianghua was - I had no idea who Chai Xianghua was. Yet that was the title of the page I was looking at. the name 'Chai' has never been mentioned in a Soul Calibur game outside the detailed stories and biographies so why should the page be titled this way?

Why is it that people think Edmond Honda is "more correct" than E. Honda? More correct for what? A biography? Certainly not an article title as Edmond has only been mentioned a handful of times. Any merchandise released such as action figures, trading cards and T-shirts would say E. Honda on the front. I don't see why anyone could argue against the common names being used as article titles other than to keep an argument going for the sake of it.

And in response to SeizureDog "people generally only call characters, or people in general, by their first names" - how many times have you called E. Honda, simply Edmond? None I bet. It's nothing to do with first names and last names - it's common names - Mitsurugi for example is the most common name and it's his surname. Oh and by way - obviously Mario Mario isn't his full name. Dan Lander 22:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your examples are flawed due to being Japanese names (they're the opposite of Western standards). However, perhaps I should rephrase myself to say that people are generally referred to by one of their names, and not in full. You generally state the full name once to establish context, then use one of the names thereforth. Example: "John Doe is an amazing guy. I don't think there's anything John can't do." Oh, and the Mario Mario name is from that awful --SeizureDog 00:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding brackets

Something else I find frustrating is people thinking using brackets should be avoided. All that does is force people to go around the houses and choosing something like the 3rd most common name as it doesn't conflict with any other article. All brackets are for is to differentiate between 2 or more articles that need to be named the same - for example Prince, Prince and Prince (royalty, musician and cigarette). No one for a second would have contemplated using Prince Rogers Nelson as his page to avoid brackets as it is wrong. House of Prince Cigarettes may avoid brackets, but it is wrong, it must be the most common name - Prince (cigarette). Just face it - you will never get rid of brackets in article titles - and I don't even know why you would want to. Dan Lander 23:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise positions

It really seems polarizing, these things. However, I also note that there seems to be no progress on a consensus - everything is "my way or the highway". As I've said before: for some series we have templates, with the intention that we put templates on every character's page. The templates will have the short and more common names on them, while the names of the articles should be the longer ones. This has been in place for Street Fighter (Template:Major Street Fighter Characters), and strikes a good enough balance for me. It will preserve the fact that short names are more familiar by their presence on the template, while preserving the fact that longer names are "more correct". (I also note that a side feature is that longer names will cause the template to be too big, and that's not the point of designing them) Now if only the Yu-Gi-Oh! project would do something about their half-page template... kelvSYC 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why are full names "more correct"? I've heard it said loads of times but I don't know where you are getting this from. So apparantly Rachel Karen Green is more correct than Rachel Green for the Friends character? Of course not. The most correct title for an article is the name they go by the most. And as for that "compromise" - that's exactly as the articles were before this debate, so that's not getting us anywhere. I don't see a need for a compromise anyway - there is only really Kung Fu Man arguing against common names. Every other article complies with the basis of this debate - title=Rob Reiner - first line=Robert "Rob" Reiner, title=Eminem, first line=Marshall Bruce Mathers III. A lot of people would know who Marshall Mathers was - but it's still not his most common name - hence why his article is titled Eminem. So Sir Mick Jagger must be "more correct", but seeing as it is not as common, what do you call his article? What do you think? Just Mick Jagger. Whereas if he was a games character, the editors would have the full hog as the title - Sir Michael Philip "Mick" Jagger without question. We could all keep issuing examples that prove that common names are right until the cows come home, as every article in Wiki is done this way except for these games ones. Is Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain more correct? Doesn't matter, most people know him as Lord Chancellor.
  • When I support using the full names, I'm not including middle names. Rachel Green is better than Rachel Karen Green, but worse than Rachel (Friends) and Rachel (Friends) is the worst. (Edit: I said exactly the opposite of what I wanted to the first time.--SeizureDog 15:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, we should only look at articles on video game characters, as the standards of other fictional characters in other Wikiprojects are outside the scope of this debate (and names of real persons are even further outside). Still, there are interesting examples that show that across the CVG character articles full names have preference: Alleria Windrunner was not referred to as such in Warcraft II (the only game she is in), but referred to as a throwaway line in World of Warcraft, as an example. Also it is to be noted that with the templates, similar templates for, say, KOF or Fatal Fury have full names on the templates. kelvSYC 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• We need a non-biased non-gamer to come and have a look at this debate as most of you aren't listening to a single point made. Common names are the titles of every other article except for these so full biographical names as titles is obviously wrong. Dan Lander 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stumbling towards a decision

"my way or the highway"

The point of mediation is to reach middle ground between two parties; getting one to capitulate is a lastish resort. I'd like to see some kind of compromise but now that I'm awake and sufficiently-caffeinated I don't see how that would work; either you use full names or you don't. If I meet up with my 3AM self again I'll ask him what he was thinking when he said you could have this both ways.

Common names are/are not "Less correct"

I think that's is a failure of diction, not a difference in perspective. I'm guilty of that slipup myself (the Blue Mary Ryan discussion in the archive) and it's certainly not what I meant at the time. Perhaps it would be better to say they are less precise, as 3.14 is a less-precise version of pi than 3.1415? Neither is more correct than the other.

Something else I find frustrating is people thinking using brackets should be avoided.

If they can be avoided without sacrificing recognisability it should be considered, but yes, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles with ambiguous names opted in favour of those ambiguous names and a paren instead of a more precise - and possibly more obscure - name. I stated my personal bias earlier to get it out in the open & avoid COI problems later. I'm trying to stay neutral here, and I think your Prince (disambiguation) example is a perfectly valid reason why you should opt for the common names, the fact that symbol-man has never appeared in a video game notwithstanding.

The argument in favour of full names sought to avoid these disambiguations with WP:NAME's escape clause and WP:NAMEPEOPLE's preference of unambiguous names, which is a valid objective. Getting rid of parentheses across Wikipedia is not, and even if it were this wouldn't be the place to start.

every article in Wiki is [disambiguated parenthetically] . . . except for these games ones.

Lenny Leonard? Hyperbole aside you may be right; I haven't sampled a large enough share of articles to be called representative but I'm not naive either - the pattern does seem to tend towards parenthetical disambiguations.

I was wondering if I was in the right place

When I talked about this earlier I dismissed it out-of-hand; is the article title such a compelling item that a diference from what's expected outweighs the picture, the video game infobox and the first line of the article itself?

title=Rob Reiner - first line=Robert "Rob" Reiner

I guess not :). All seriousness aside though, honest question: is that really a problem people have?

King (SNK) vs King (KOF)

Whichever way this discussion goes, that discussion will almost certainly form step two. I tried to water it down with the chatter about Blue Mary Ryan earlier but it's going to bubble over sooner or later.

most of you aren't listening to a single point made

The circular talk and restatement of old points here indicates we've probably said most of what there is to say. The time to to come up with a decision one way or the other is creeping up on us.

We need a non-biased non-gamer to come and have a look at this debate

Many hands make light work. As a gamer familiar who's familiar with the genre I can't help but introduce some systemic bias into this discussion... but then again we're all biased. I've tried hard to sit on the fence here, as anyone who's read my arguments against myself can probably see, but if you think I'm being partial please say so. Hopefully a second mediator can plow through that gigantic wall of text and offer a thought or three.

Yu-Gi-Oh template

More like Yu-Gi-Uh-Oh! Hopefully WP:C&VG's shards will keep their templates genre-specific.

[edit] SUMMARY

Each proposal has the support of policy and guidelines. There are enough articles titled in each manner to make a good case either way. Whichever way this goes, the option not chosen will have a whole array of redirects (Sakura Kasugano <-> Sakura (Street Fighter). The better of the two choices should be identified by its merits alone.

Full names

Are not game-dependent for characters who've appeared in multiple games

More precise and therefore rarely ambiguous (counterpoint: that's why we have redirects)

Do not apply to all characters

Are not as accessible to editors who want to link these articles from their pages

Do not appear to fit with common WP behaviour

Common names

More accessible

Can be applied across all games and characters (counterpoint: "Jin" who?)

Nearly all will require disambiguation, causing problems for characters who've appeared in multiple games

Not consistent with games whose characters have full names (requiring omission of those names in these cases; Gaira Kafuin would be called Gaira (Samurai Showdown) _{(bad example)}

Not an argument

They're right/wrong (Both names are equally right)

Full names are cruft (Wikipedia would be nigh-empty if all specialised knowledge were purged)

Parentheses stink (Perhaps, but they're everywhere and they're the best solution we have. WP:NOT#PAPER)

This article does this (And that article does that)

This real person has that article title (This is a video game discussion about video game characters and the Wikipedia video game articles about these video games' video game characters. Video games.)

Any more new points while we're waiting for the third/fourth/nth opinions? I've pretty much made up my mind, but this is mediation, not arbitration. Flakeloaf 05:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to positives and negatives

Your Gaira example is wrong. The page would not have to be Gaira (Samurai Showdown) as that is not his common name. His page would still be Gaira Caffeine as that is the name the announcer says every time he wins. This applies to all Samurai Showdown characters except for a handful (such as Galford). The only series' that common names need to be used for are; Street Fighter (all versions), Darkstalkers and Soul Edge/Calibur. These are the only games that aren't even consistent with themselves - Alex, Rose, Taki, Astaroth, Rikuo and Sasquatch for example have never had surnames. Other fighting games such as Tekken, Virtua Fighter, King Of Fighters, Guilty Gear and Samurai Shodown all use full names (announced or written in game) for the characters that have them.

After looking at the Samurai Showdown template I happily sit corrected. I got a bit ahead of myself there; this discussion started off with Street Fighter character names. Thought should be given to what the rest of the WikiProject is going to do but last things first. Flakeloaf 10:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the so-called compromise - change SF, Darkstalkers and Soul Edge pages to use the commonly used names (E. Honda, Ivy, Jedah etc) and leave every other article as they are (as in these cases, the full names are common). Dan Lander 19:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the full names for many of the Darkstalkers characters, as I'd pointed out to Mr.bonus, had their last names present from the getgo in the first two games (notably the manuals), and said names are mentioned more than enough times in in-game dialogue and whatnot, and so on. The names for the artciles as they are now are fine. If you'll also notice the majority of sites referencing the characters will use the full names (this also presents confusions with other articles named Morrigan, Victor, Donovan and so on without the need for disambiguation).

In fact checking right quick, B. B. Hood could technically have the article called by her full name, given said name appears on the select screen for her. That one is a wee bit up in the air, but leaning towards full names. Your examples used however fails on a few fronts: Sasquatch is Sasquatch: it's the name of his race and no name for that particular one; same for Q-Bee. Rikuo doesn't have a last name probably for the simple reason he doesn't need one: um, he's a merman? Lilith has no surname listed because she's literally a part of someone else, not really someone who was 'born', and capcom has yet to call her Lilith Aensland: that's something fans cooked up and possibly the fault of MvC in that in game they call each other 'sister' (and we all know how much the vs series weighs on the official storylines :P).

That deals with your consistency, though if you wish to continue I guess I could toss out that Jack and Kuma of Tekken have never had surnames.

As already stated here though the full names for many street fighter characters are actually used often for them, such as Dan Hibiki and Ken Masters. Capcom just simply didn't make last names for a lot of the SF chars at all.

Used yes, used in-game no. Compare the way Samurai Showdown calls every character "$surname $given name" on the selection screen and after each round, to Street Fighter's first-names-only policy throughout. What happens in endings is less-relevant, otherwise we'd be calling Blanka "Jimmy".

If you do end up opting for the "common names" policy, do you want to come up with a litmus test for what makes a surname "common"? Going by what's displayed during gameplay might lend a bit too much credit to abbreviations made for space concerns, and not everyone stands there and watches the attract screens or endings. Maybe go with what's on the character selection screen, since everyone sees it and it represents the game's best/last chance at properly introducing the character? Flakeloaf 10:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Soul Calibur, well the names are probably mentioned there but given I'm not an expert on the series, I won't bother debating this one with you.--Kung Fu Man 09:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would also make sense to use the shorter names in the template boxes as well as there are space limitations. Onionz 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree: on the naviboxes it doesn't harm anything.--Kung Fu Man 09:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear god yes. Flakeloaf 10:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Name 'litmus tests'

As Flakeloaf said, I think what goes as the common name is the one used on the player select screen. But also consideration should be given to the announced names (when a character wins or is selected). Tekken characters for example have always been labelled as the short name on the player select but throughout the series they are always announced as 'Paul Phoenix', 'Wang Jinrei' etc. So I would have to say it should be whatever the select screen says, or if there is an announcer - whatever they call them is their common name. Dan Lander 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So the voice ("Johnny Cage") supercedes the name given on the display screen ("Cage"), and the select screen name ("Pai Chan") overrules what's on the lifebar during gameplay ("Pai"). That definitely looks workable, especially since it fits in with the way other shards of your WikiProject seem to want to do this. Does this sound good to everyone? Flakeloaf 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly it. That's the reasoning behind why I thought articles like Thunder Hawk and Isabella "Ivy" Valentine were wrongly titled, yet why Johnny Cage and Takuma Sakazaki were OK. I think that's a very good rule in titling these articles. Mr.bonus 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds policy-worthy to me. That should become a guideline for this WikiProject. :) JuJube 19:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's simplify it better: if the full name is used in the games or the manuals for the games, use it. This would leave characters like Edmond Honda fine, but Rolento's article would stay Rolento. (Btw, for all intents and purposes it would seem T. Hawk would stay T. Hawk in this). Basically, using the full names if they can be taken directly from the games without speculation or digging through capcom stuffs to find some obscure reference.--Kung Fu Man 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not simplifying it, it's confusing the issue. The method proposed by Flakeloaf (and agreed by myself, Dan Lander and JuJube) is a solid rule that easily defines articles names. You're trying to complicate this just because it seems, you are desperate to title the one article - Edmond Honda. You've already confused yourself by trying to figure out if it's T. Hawk or Thunder Hawk. With Flakeloaf's guideline - finding the correct name for an article is easy. If the full name is mentioned on the character select screen, by the announcer or underneath the energy bar, then it is common. the name Edmond Honda fits none of these criteria. Therefore the name is not common. Your method would require an editor to personally rate a source's validity, which would be subjective. Mr.bonus 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The names in the actual games or manuals should be used is common sense: anyone bothering with said games is going to run across it easily and with little effort. Dan is simply Dan on the select screen and the lifebars, but shown in full in his winquotes and storyline. There is no additional searching needed to know that Dan is Dan Hibiki. My point with bringing up T. Hawk is even in the introduction text for SFA3, it's still T. Hawk, not Thunder Hawk. To be honest I don't think the manuals refer to him as Thunder Hawk either. Under what was stated, the name just isn't common enough. A simple guideline that would suffice to keep editors from having to check constantly would be to simply state on the talk page where the character's name comes from in the actual game or documentaion, and not worry about latter or secondary texts as those would not fall under these guidelines as common. My understanding of Flakeloaf's point was, if it's in the game somewhere, it's good. You instead choose to narrow it down to an extreme.--Kung Fu Man 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of Flakeloaf's point was, if it's in the game somewhere, it's good.

Then I've been misunderstood. Review (emphasis mine): "not everyone. . . watches the attract screens or endings. Maybe go with what's on the character selection screen, since everyone sees it and it represents the game's best/last chance at properly introducing the character?. I do think including other in-game text would confuse things just a tad and eclipse the thought behind the current compromise. Out-of-game text, even if found in a manual, simply doesn't have the exposure that the selection screens do. People read a manual maybe once, but they're bombarded with the character's name and picture every time one is chosen. I can count on one hand the people I know who've read the manual for an arcade game (and that includes installers). Attract screens, endings and winquotes also differ wildly from title to title, while selection screens have stayed mercifully consistent. Let's not complicate this any more than it absolutely has to be. Properly sourcing whatever name you do use is a great idea though - there must be a way to incorporate a character's selection screen headshot as a fair-use image somewhere in the article? Flakeloaf 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then no offense here, but if that's the solution we've been arguing all this for quite some time for nothing (of course then again, what happens if a full name appears on the machine's stickers but not in the game itself? This is still too open). Too many character names are just one name in game, full name in somewhere very easily within the player's view. And if this is going to be a guideline, saying only if it appears on a select screen or announcer or lifebar will not apply for games beyond fighters: how would you apply this to RPGs? Or a show? Yes, I'm being stubborn with this, but I don't think simply because someone didn't read a name in a manual or winquote or in-game text is reason to exclude such when they all have equal weight to what the select screen might say (going further there are issues like typos in select screen names: Rikuo is the character's name, but a mistranslation shows it as Rikvo in Vampire Savior. So because it's that there, should the article change to Rikvo? Wait, the name appears as Rikuo in the previous two games...) You see where a problem might come up?

And simple text refrence from a game that's readily available on the talk page should suffice for reasoing without cluttering things up at all, or even a short ref tag explaining why the article's name and a name in the article are different or if the same where they come from. This prevents any debate of whether one name weighs more than another because simply put, if it's used in the games' content, it counts. If not, no foul. From what I've read here a lot of folks should agree with that stance.--Kung Fu Man 12:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense. Saying that we only should use the well known name can get opinionated and cause conflicts ("well, I know/don't know Ken's name is Ken Masters"), but the fact that the full name exists leaves much less room for debate. Guidelines are best when they're straightforward. --SeizureDog 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Before an exception is found, what should be done about characters that have short names in some games, while full names in others? I can't think of any off-hand, but I'm sure it's happened somewhere. Also, what about for characters with names that change? Heres a perfect example: Zato-1 vs. Eddie (Guilty Gear) and Dr. Baldhead vs. Faust (Guilty Gear). The former is currently at Zato-1, which was the old name for the character, while the latter is currently at Faust (Guilty Gear), the new name for the character.--SeizureDog 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Faust (Guilty Gear) would be the best one to stick with there probably, since it's the most recent name for the character (usually situations like these don't come up. At one point in the games I think Faust even mentions he doesn't go by Baldhead anymore, or at least hints at it). Eddie and Zato-1 are technically two different characters though using the same style/"base", which kinda complicates things...Zato-1/"Eddie" for the article name perhaps with appropriate redirects? Just a suggestion. I can't think of many cases where this sort of thing happens though, and it does fall under a whole different category of discussion really.--Kung Fu Man 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Zato/Eddie should stay where they are, with perhaps a short section describing what Eddie is. The character Eddie is not really separate from Zato-1 in terms of story. JuJube 01:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hugo vs. Andore. They're based on the same real-life person and both involve the same crossover character (Poison), but it can't be demonstrated that they ARE the same person so they need two separate articles. I can't think of any characters whose names have changed for reasons other than localised releases (the SNES version of Final Fight, World versions of Street Fighter etc.) so let's jump off that bridge when we get to it. Later games should probably supercede earlier ones unless it can clearly be demonstrated that the latest release had a dismally small audience.

Any thoughts on what should go in the parens after a character's name for those who appeared in multiple games? Sticking with the first provable appearance is consistent but it might cause recognisability problems - how many people who've played Marvel vs. Capcom would recognise Jin (Cyberbots)? I'm not sure (SNK) makes much sense either, except perhaps for third-rate characters who had a walkon role in some Art of Fighting title before appearing in the latest Series vs. Manufacturer game, and even then that seems like an unnecessary exception to a project that prides itself on being so consistent across what is, generally, a very diverse group of games. Flakeloaf 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the first game/series they appeared in makes sense. Jin is fairly obscure in the first place, anyone who knows who he is probably knows where he came from. Plus, as you said, it's consistent. I think the method we agreed on is fine and can be applied to all articles easily. Mr.bonus 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm adamant on the articles being named properly despite differing opinions. As for Jin, Jin (Cyberbots) would be the best bet if the full name can't be used, as Jin (MvC) implies he appeared first in the crossover game, which he did not. in such situations probably best to overlook crossover games entirely and go with the games where the character had the most prominent weight in the storyline, and if none is applicable then go with the company the character derives from if the first name/surname can't be used at all.--Kung Fu Man 13:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have to add that the name is "Thunder Hawk", according to an SSF2 manual. Furthermore, the Cyberbots manual and in-game clearly states that Jin's last name is Saotome. Some promotional material for MvC and Cyberbots (at least in Japanese) used the name in full (although they are inconsistent with regards to whether kanji or kana is applied, which is not that big of a deal here). kelvSYC 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many dang colons

Too many character names are just one name in game, full name in somewhere very easily within the player's view.

True, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and when it is drawn the guideline should include as many characters under one umbrella as possible. "Easily within the player's view" is subjective; some games were conversion kits (no stickers), some players don't read manuals, some people have never finished the games. Everyone has seen selection screens.

if it's used in the games' content, it counts

This sacrifices consistency. Not all characters were properly introduced, so this would leave us with some articles having binomial names and others having common names. That's the situation that contributed to this debate. Also, Blanka -> Jimmy (Street Fighter).

equal weight

Being equally-correct is not the same thing as being equally-common.

Saying that we only should use the well known name can get opinionated and cause conflicts ("well, I know/don't know Ken's name is Ken Masters"), but the fact that the full name exists leaves much less room for debate.

The main problem with the full-names perspective is exactly that: not everyone knows them. Yes they exist, yes they are canon but they are not the most commonly available names and probably wouldn't make good article titles, on the whole. WP:NAME is clear on this point:

• The most common names should be used unless they conflict with the names of other people and things
• Even when they do conflict with other people/things' names, they should still be used unless another equally-clear option exists
• We write for the average reader and not for experts
• Ken Masters and Ken from Street Fighter are not equally-clear to the average reader.
• QED

Please go through the archived discussion in this MedCab if you haven't already, there's a lot of good argument from both sides in there, but the discussion never strayed from the need to recognise accessibility to other editors. Full names just aren't a good idea for that reason alone. WP:NAME has a trapdoor, but when I suggested using it the counterpoints that followed were very convincing.

And if this is going to be a guideline, saying only if it appears on a select screen or announcer or lifebar will not apply for games beyond fighters: how would you apply this to RPGs?

Right now the discussion is restricted to fighting games because that's where most of the controversy is. RPGs' record for properly introducing their characters is somewhat better than that of fighting games. I don't see the problem with Character (First Appearance) in ambiguous cases. Flakeloaf 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to go that route, shouldn't we go by developers instead? ("I'm trying to find King from The King of Fighters, but all I see is King (Art of Fighting)...") I know that's confusing to me at least. SNK has too many overlapping series. This example needs to have an answer for which ever case, since she doesn't have a full name anyways.--SeizureDog 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

King's first appearance was in Art of Fighting between the first bonus round and Lee, but she's appeared in several SNK series since. I agree with you 105% that these games are extremely confusing because of their fluidity and endless crossovers. (SNK) isn't without its own problems though, since it's less-intuitive than both (Art of Fighting) and (King of Fighters); one doesn't search for Ryu (Capcom). The reason I keep harping on Jin is because his first appearance is arguably the most marginal of them all.

Opting for the more academic (First Appearance) disambig would be consistent, but if it broke accessibility for the "sake of being right" it would be no better than using full names, and if there why not everywhere? Welcome back to Square One.

Developers across-the-board? Hmm, are they known well-enough to try that? I can't think of who wrote Soul Calibur or Tekken off the top of my head (but 3D fighters were never my thing - I guess that makes me the "average reader" now). Flakeloaf 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They both were by Namco (didn't have to look). King (SNK) was especially confusing to me because there are only 3 AoF games (the last of which was released 10 years ago) and 14 KOF games (a series which is still going) and as far as I know, she's appeared in all of the games for both series. So being a late comer to SNK games, I rather assumed she was a KOF character. But how about this: if the character appeared in only one series, we use that, but if they were in multiple series, we use the developer. So we have King (SNK), but King (Tekken). Basically, this is going to make most of Capcom's and SNK's characters use the developer, and almost everyone else use the series. If accessibility is our goal, I think this works best. I mean, if the only game you ever played was SVC Chaos, you're really not going to know what game Dan Hibiki was originally from (I would also like to add that his name is clearly given in the manual). I'm not quite sure if the word "character" needs to be added though: King (Art of Fighting) was previously at King (SNK character).--SeizureDog 15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion clarifies the SNK triple-majors and spares us the hilariously absurd Ken (Capcom). Just to make sure, by "multiple series" you're thinking of the SNK-SNK transitions and not the Manufacturer vs. Series crossover games (X-Men Vs. SF, Marvel vs. Capcom, Capcom vs. SNK) , right? Flakeloaf 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rikuo is the character's name, but a mistranslation shows it as Rikvo in Vampire Savior. So because it's that there, should the article change to Rikvo? Wait, the name appears as Rikuo in the previous two games...) You see where a problem might come up?

Not really. It's recognised by its fandom as a translation/transcription error, and this is proven by the correct spelling appearing in the other two titles. In this case, a note in the article explaining the error is all that's needed. Rydia, whose name was probably intended to be Lydia, appeared in only one Final Fantasy title. With no external source of proof (and knowing the error was repeated twice in two later releases of that title) all we have is conjecture on what her name might've been, so Rydia stays. Flakeloaf 13:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a solution that will make everyone happy. No deals. Let's hang 'em all. Uhm, I mean, merge Jin to Cyberbots (and Hayato Kanzaki to Star Gladiator while we're at it) since they come from minimally popular games. JuJube 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw hell, just merge 'em all into List of Capcom Video Games and let's go have some beers. Flakeloaf 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binomial nomenclature

I still contend that characters should be named binomially whenever possible, despite that the result is a less commonly-used name. I have not seen any cases other than professional wrestling where binomial names are regularly "against the norms" (and that's because of established ring names having precedence). Article titles do not have to be short for the sake of being short, which in my opinion is why we should have Sakura Kasugano, Karin Kanzuki, and Ken Masters over listing them by their given names alone. Within other genres of CVGs, I also see binomial nomenclature used consistently even if the source material does not - Tyrande Whisperwind and Maiev Shadowsong come to my mind, where on some occasions they are labeled by their full name while on others they are labeled by their given names (and then there's the case of Malfurion Stormrage, where sometimes the name given is a short version of either full name or given name...). There is some weight to having fighting game characters with full names, if only for consistency with names given in other genres. kelvSYC 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that choosing less well-known names over more common ones seems to stomp on WP:NAME and causes the problems discussed earlier. We're talking in circles here so I'm calling in more help. Flakeloaf 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with what KelvSYC is saying here. I think that the full names are so un-common with most characters, that these full names only really belong in the biography section (first line of article in bold and maybe on the top of the character info box). If Ken is mentioned on Ryu's page for example, it should still just say Ken and not Ken Masters as that is the established name given to the character - for example the sentence: "It is widely believed that he lost to Ken in this tournament" sounds far better than saying Ken's full name as Masters is rarely used in comparison. Mr.bonus 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But by the same token "Ryo's sister is Yuri" is easier to say than "Ryo Sakazaki's sister is Yuri Sakazaki". Of course given names will be used in these cases - they're shorter. The Sakazaki surname is rarely used by in comparison to Ryo's, Yuri's or Takuma's given names, but that doesn't invalidate the necessity of putting the article name in the title. The issue at hand is the title of the article - what appears in the body is stylistic convention (eg. "Ryuji" might be a bit obscure, but "Yamazaki" is less ambiguous, but the title remains "Ryuji Yamazaki"). We are not arguing over what appears in the body of the article, just the titles. kelvSYC 07:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree. Yet you started by saying that you shouldn't limit article length and use full names in the article most of the time. Whereas as now you are saying full names don't read as well as the given names. I agree with your 2nd comment. Mr.bonus 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • When did I limit article length? I honestly can't recall. But titles... kelvSYC 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observation of CardFighters DS trading cards

This might not be applicable here (since it comes from a Japanese version of a game), but Card Fighters DS (the recently released third installment of SNK's Card Fighters series) features various trading cards of Capcom and SNK characters.[1] I'm not suggesting to use this game as a guideline on how to name these articles, but if you names of the character cards, you'll note that:

• Most of the Street Fighter characters are referred by a single name, even those with full names like Ken, Dan and Sakura. The only exceptions are Edmond Honda, Rainbow Mika and Thunder Hawk. M. Bison (who would be Balrog in the English localization) is referred by his in-game name and not Mike Bison.

• All of the Vampire (Darkstalkers) character are referred by full names whenever they have one (Donovan Baine, Demitri Maximoff, Morrigan Aensland).

• Maki Genryusai and Mike Haggar are refered by full names. Cody and Rolento aren't (then again, Streetwise was never released in Japan).

• All of the Biohazard (Resident Evil), Gyakuten Saiban (Phoenix Wright) and Justice Gakuen (Rival Schools) characters are referred by full names too.

Take that as you will.Jonny2x4 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not the greatest of examples to use.... I wish someone would make an article for this game though, as I'm not curious as to who some of these characters are. --SeizureDog 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

However, the SNK characters from there are also not named consistently:

• Newer KOF characters like Adelheid Bernstein, Elizabeth Blactorche, and so on are only given their given names on their cards (especially surprising considering they fit the full name of Satsui no Hadou Ryu, the Orochi New Face Team, Orochi Iori, Orochi Leona, even Iron Body Zangief in there)
• Kim Kaphwan, as with all recent SNK offerings, has only his surname given on the card.

OT, but I'm surprised that they included characters from Alpha Denshi games in there - is it because SNK absorbed ADK, or is it because of their appearance in NGBC? And is it just me, or does Mai look European, Mina a lot off-model, and Yuri, Akari, and Mega Man (and to a lesser extent, Felicia and Sakura) straight out of a cartoon...?

kelvSYC 07:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, what a nightmare. I'm willing to close my eyes and pretend this horribly inconsistent derivative work doesn't exist until after this debate's concluded. Anyone? Flakeloaf 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My proposed guidelines

The following proposed guidelines only apply to the article namespace. Shortened/common names should be used in infoboxes and the character should be referred by whatever sounds natural in the text itself.

• Full names are used if an official, canon source is provided for it. (e.g. Sakura Kasugano and not Sakura (Street Fighter))
• Middle names do not apply to the above. (e.g. Sarah Kerrigan and not Sarah Louise Kerrigan)
• Articles are listed at a character's pseudonym if it is more well known than the character's actual name. (e.g. Blanka and not Jimmy (Street Fighter))
• Nicknames are used in place of the character's proper name if it is more well known. (e.g. Ivy Valentine, and not Isabella Valentine, Isabella "Ivy" Valentine, or Ivy (Soul Calibur))
• For characters in need of disambiguation, the game series they are part of is used in parentheses. The series is used even if the character has only appeared in one game of the series. (e.g. Makoto (Street Fighter) and not Makoto (Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike)
• For characters involved in multiple series, the above rule applies to the first and main series they are a part of if it is clear that they are a "guest" character in other games. (e.g. Link (The Legend of Zelda) does not need to be at Link (Nintendo) because everyone knows that he's just a guest character in Soul Calibur II and the Super Smash Bros. series)
• If the above is unclear, and the character appears to be fully canon in multiple series, then the company that owns the character is used in parentheses instead. (e.g. King (SNK) and not King (Art of Fighting) or King (The King of Fighters))
• Characters with multiple names are a case call, and should generally be discussed individually. However, generally, the most recent title of the character should be used. (e.g. Zato-1 vs. Eddie (Guilty Gear) needs discussion)

I think this covers everything. Any arguements to this or any exceptions that this doesn't cover?--SeizureDog 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• These sound good so far. JuJube 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm digging around trying to find exceptions and I found one I'm very perplexed about: May Lee. She is shown as 'May' Lee Jinju on the character select screen for The King of Fighters Neowave. Is 'May' her pseudonym? Or a nickname for her first name (with 'Lee' being a middle name)? Is 'Lee Jinju' her actual name? I seriously don't know where she would go. Note that she's even problematic with the proposed "use the select screen's name" policy, for as I stated before, that's exactly where I found it.--SeizureDog 02:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think Neowave is canon, though, although I'm no expert on SNK canon. JuJube 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it not? I'm no expert myself; I just happen to own it and 94 Re-Bout. Even if it's not, she probably has that same full name shown somewhere that is canon. In any case, the official sites [2][3][4] seem to all call her just May Lee, so I suppose the article is fine where it is for the time being. Still, Neowave is the most recent game to feature her (though only the Japanese PS2 version; I'm now glad I got it), and very unhelpfully, the website for that game doesn't list her[5], nor does the manual for that matter. I'd still like to know exactly what her name is though, if for nothing but the lead.--SeizureDog 03:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is a real pickle: the "common name" is May Lee, although her real name is Lee Jinju. It's similar to Blue Mary ("common" as Blue Mary, although the real name is Mary Ryan) that way. I don't recall if NeoWave really did use "May Lee Jinju" (and I can't check cause they replaced the NeoWave machine with XI recently at my local arcade), although KOF2002 might. kelvSYC 07:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • She was only in the Japanese PS2 port for Neowave anyways. I'm going to call "May Lee", and "Blue Mary", pseudonyms so that they still work with my proposal. I'm wondering if "Lee Jinju" is actually backwards though, since given names come last in Korean names and "Lee" does not sound like a given name for a girl. "Jinju", Korean for "pearl" very much sounds like a girl's name though. So her name may actually be Jinju "May" Lee. This seems inconsistant, since every Japanese name (which, like Korean names, give surnames first) in the series is correctly in the Western style when written in English, even in the Japanese versions of the game (I'm not positive about the other Korean names though, since I don't know that language). Geez, what a bother this girl is.--SeizureDog 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kim is a surname. Chang is a surname. Choi is a surname. However, Jhun is a given name. I recall that the Korean release of KOF2001 gave the Kim team (and Jhun) names in Hanja. The English transliteration of names in KOF has been inconsistent with respect to which name is first - most Japanese names are given (eg. Yashiro Nanakase, Kyo Kusanagi, Mai Shiranui, Kasumi Todoh) while a good number of Chinese and Korean names are given surname first - even if (eg. Kim Kaphwan, Li Xiangfei, Chin Gentsai, Choi Bounge, Sie Kensou). As for May Lee, yes, Lee is her surname. There are some exceptions (eg. Joe Higashi and Ryo Sakazaki have names typically rendered in katakana, for which they would be given name first, although some games - Real Bout 2 for Joe and Buriki One for Ryo - have the names rendered in kanji, which would be surname first). kelvSYC 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, what a mess. So, I guess we should we reword these leads to be something like "Koehan Chang, usually written with the surname first as Chang Koehan (Korean: 장거한), is..."? Obviously, the articles namespaces should stay where they'd still be understood, since there's no point in confusing everyone by "correcting" the names even if that is standard policy. I'm going to go ahead and start implementing this.--SeizureDog 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observation of a more authorative source

I must admit Card Fighters DS isn't exactly the most authorative source when it comes to finding out the official names for the characters, so I decided to check out some scans from Capcom Design Works. [6] [7] Note all the Capcom/Street Fighter characters are referred by single names, while SNK/KoF characters use full names when they can. Jonny2x4 04:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be all and end all

Most people who play games don't know the surnames, so just use their common name. Then there is no need for coming up with hundreds of guidelines as there is only one answer instead of all this Blue Mary and Blanka nonsense. The complexity of your guidelines show how unnecessary and overly complicated this all is. Blanka, Sakura, Heihachi Mishima, E. Honda, Blue Mary, Robert Garcia are all common names and there is no need to have 1 set of rules for one article and a completely different set for another. Mr.bonus 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't helping. We're attempting to come up with a guideline to follow. "Just use the common name" isn't an appropriate guideline as it leaves much up to your own perception. JuJube 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Exactly. "Most people yadda yadda" is by far also not a sufficient reason, as without some official source stating this it's just your POV. Is there some poll tucked away somewhere where people were asked if Ken or Ken Masters was more recognizable, or something similar? No, there is not. Anyway, JuJube pretty much stated the same thing I wanted to here: that isn't helping.--Kung Fu Man 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there some poll tucked away somewhere where people were asked if Ken or Ken Masters was more recognizable, or something similar? Again, is there a contention that more people have consulted the website than have played the games? On the other side, if one is going to speak in favour of what's "most common", it's expected there'd be some kind of objective substantiation behind exactly what "common" is. RfC has done nothing, I'll VP this one for more ideas in a day or three. Flakeloaf 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• The reasons my proposed guidelines are "complicated" is to prevent debate as much as possible. Just saying "use common names" leaves too much interpetation, as we've seen here in this mediation case. I suppose we could hold amount of massive amount of case by case debates to determine what everyone deems as an acceptably common name for each article, but I prefer a policy to just end this mess already. --SeizureDog 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• "Just saying "use common names" leaves too much interpetation" - we did set up guidelines to determine this. The guidelines myself, Dan Lander and Flakeloaf came up with seem good enough to determine what is a common name, but the points now seem lost after all the follow up replies. Only one user disagreed with that method yet we are still needlessly debating. Whether you are on a forum or debating on Wiki, it's always the same, users never remember any points made other than the last one. I've made about 40 points in this debate yet people have only responded to about 10 of them, and these are always the last ones I wrote. SeizureDog's guidelines were no where near solid enough as they changed based on each character. A common name is whatever is announced or written on the player slect screen - if it is not here, it is not common. Mr.bonus 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Their guideline also seems to work, in that it is well-articulated, easy to apply across the whole project and leaves the number of individual "special cases" no higher than any other proposal thus far. Flakeloaf 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Going by title screen/annoucer only, we'd have Law (Tekken) and Law (Tekken 3). Is that something we really want? This policy also has no way of handling inconsistancies. What if the select screen name and what the annoucer says are different? Guilty Gear XX example: "Ky Kiske" on select screen, just "Ky" in-game and by announcer. What if one game has it short while another game has it long? You fail to address if we are to use the shorter or longer varient. If we should use the longer version, then why not just extend it to apply to any case where it's official? Like I said, there are too many inconsistances to debate with this proposed policy. I attempted to make my proposed guidelines have as few exceptions as possible; the only real snag it has is with names that aren't properly switched to be given name first, but there seems to be nobody pushing for that so it's fine for now.--SeizureDog 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Later games supercede new ones, series names supercede sequel names, spoken names supercede text, full names when necessary to disambiguate within a game (as with Law). Anyone can make up rules and say they work. Flakeloaf 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Which puts us back again to a set of detailed guidelines. I don't really care what the guidelines are anymore so long as they are clear and undebatable. There's no point in having gone though this whole mess to set guidelines that work with Street Fighter characters only to be back later with a different series because it doesn't work as clearly with it. Plus next time it might not even be a fighter character that's the problem, and the whole "character select screen" thing can't even apply.--SeizureDog 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I addressed that earlier. Games without character select screens tend to do a much better job of introducing their characters, and nearly always involve some kind of console. The case for using information in manuals to console games is much stronger than manuals for arcade games that happen to have been released on consoles. Cloud Strife is just fine.

Again, this boils down to mentioning a character by name in the head vs the body of the article. No one has problems with mentioning a character by some short name in the body of the article, and everyone would agree that writing "Sol" is easier than repetitively writing Sol Badguy over and over again. But as for article titles, using this convention simply does not work, due to the overwhelming amount of ambiguity. Consider this characters may have similar names: Lee Chaolan and Lei Wulong are referred to as "Lee" and "Lei" in the Tekken games. Listing them at Lee and Lei would only serve to confuse the casual reader (since neither are protagonists of the main Tekken story. However, when mentioning whatever interactions they have with each other in the body of the article, "Lee" and "Lei" will be good enough. I'm sure that everyone can agree on this decision. kelvSYC 02:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• There really isn't any problems. Tekken, VF and KOF introduce characters by their full names all the time anyway. It's only really SF, Darkstalkers and Soul Edge/Calibur that this debate affects. And as for other games such as RPGs - full names are mostly common. Simply playing an RPG is delving into the story, while fighting game players would usually be unfamiliar with full biographical names. And yes, in the artcile body - Lei, Heihachi, Ryo, Yuri etc will be the best way to address characters. Mr.bonus 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To tell you the truth, my local arcade converts cabs all the time. If it weren't for the fact that a friend had a home version of Guilty Gear, I would not have known that Kuradoberi was Jam's last name (even if all other characters with binomial names are given out in full). Neither would I have been aware of many of the Tekken characters full names (Lee, Lei, Feng, Wang, Xiaoyu, Asuka, Jin, Anna, Nina, Jinpachi, and Kazuya) or some of the newer KOF characters (Ash, Elizabeth, Shen), so to separate series along these lines seems arbitrary. It introduces a double standard, which we cannot afford. kelvSYC 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe you are playing Tekken on mute then, as all character's full names are spoken whenever they are selected or win a match. That is the reason for "double standards". Also, Guilty Gear character's names are written on the versus screens. I think you may have just missed them, but they certainly are common in those games. It's only SF/Darkstalkers and Soul Edge that full names are rarely (if at all) mentioned in the games (which I have said before). Mr.bonus 15:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll check again when I get home, but Tekken and 3 don't say the full names on the select screen or anytime during a match. Also, I'm certain that the full name is not shown on fight screens for the Guilty Gear series. For example, see this image where it just says "Jam". I'm not sure how arcade select screens are set up, so it might not even be shown there. In any case, KelvSYC clearly shows that what the "common name" is differs from person to person. Saying "you just missed it" undermines the entire argument for using them the common name.--SeizureDog 17:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll be quick to point out that the arcade cabinets for Tekken games I've seen here have been mute oddly enough. And then again what happens if the player is deaf? Therefore he couldn't possibly hear the announcer say a character's name and the full name would not be common for him. Also while he'll be playable in the PS3 Tekken 5, Jinpachi currently isn't selectable, thus you'll never here the announcer say "Jinpachi Mishama" and the lifebar only shows "Jinpachi". So under the guidelines that would mean his acticle should just be called "Jinpachi" and not his full name. But he's obviously Mishima too the game's dialogue states that, and quite blatantly for several of the characters. But we rule that out?
        • Making it so that it uses the binomial name if it appears in in game text or manual solves this so easily it's not even funny. If someone doesn't read such that isn't anyone's foul at all: it's there, in the player's reach and official. Countering it with 'they could just miss it' would be the same flaw SeizureDog pointed out.--Kung Fu Man 17:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
          • This is now my main reason for supporting the binomial names. Using full names is simple and leaves little to debate, but trying to force these common names causes questions of "Well, just how common is This compared to This That?" The binomial system makes it clear and can be applied across all all genres. In fact, my proposed guidelines can be applied to any fictional character, which further simplifies things and would make for good MOS policy. --SeizureDog 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I play at a crowded arcade, where the arcade games all get play (but fighters get 4-to-1 compared to Time Crisis 4, which is the most popular non-fighter at my local arcade). Of course the machines are set to mute whenever they can. So, lacking any flyers or other arcade cab material (as they are conversions), I can only rely on what's there visually to determine "common", which may differ from another person's perception of what "common" is. But that's beside the point. Restricting a double standard to certain series is regarded as an arbitrary decision - better to have one that can be applied easily to all cases (even if it seems awkward in certain areas) than to have two contradictory ones where one has precedence over another almost arbitrarily. kelvSYC 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Whether someone cannot hear the announcer or they missed it on a versus screen is irrelevant. The reason a name is considered common if it's written or spoken in game is because the information is easily accessible and a part of the game. Edmond Honda for example is only ever written once in Alpha 3 and no where else, whereas Lee Chaolin's full name is written or announced numerous times throughout the Tekken series. The same goes for all fighting game characters - Sakura Kusagano and Nathaniel Rock Adams for example are only written in biographies and not in the games, whereas Robert Garcia and Akira Yuki's full names are written or spoken within the games almost without fail. So to speak in the same vain as Kung-Fu Man - using my/Flakeloaf's/Dan Lander's guideline determines common names "so easily it's not even funny". Mr.bonus 12:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you...nevermind. Anyway, let's observe the facts: you're taking a common name and making it completely subjective to the viewer or listener. Why does a select screen text or audio have more merit than any other in game text or audio? To argue that "someone won't read that so it's irrelevant" is not the best arguement to use when that's your POV and defeated by you stating how whether or not someone hears audio in the game is 'irrelevant'. And you still didn't even take into account the example I gave with Jinpachi: the announcer doesn't say his name, but in game text will give the full name Jinpachi Mishima. But since you wish to stick to your current skewed guidelines for this the article lacks the last name by default for absolutely no reason other than 'compliance'.
      • Restricting it to names said in game or a manual are significant enough to make the standard not one that applies solely to "a fighting game" and would allow said standard to be applied to games overall without issue, and cuts out many possible odd situations. I really can't see any possible means for you to find this to be some troublesome issue: it's accurate and unbiased.--Kung Fu Man 15:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • There's a bit of a difference from a name written on player select screens than one hidden away in an instruction booklet or on a character's ending. Your Jinpachi example is easily solved (it's not even a problem). The whole Tekken series has always advertised character's last names for the characters that have had them - so Jinpachi is no different. I've said before (3 times) that this debate only affects SF/Darkstalkers and Soul Edge. And by the way, the guideline is there for everyone else, not just you. You've already said that Rolento sounds better than Rolento F Shugerg. So why are you contradicting yourself by arguing for full names whenever they are known, yet saying that Shugerg is slighty too rare to include. Flakeloaf's guidelines are solid and do not require rating sources like your system. Mr.bonus 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry sir, but advertised everywhere does not fit into your guidelines. You also overlooked the simple fact there is no rating involved with "my system": the binomial name exists in one of those forms, go with it. This would mean you'd get Dan Hibiki but just Rolento (as one is stated in game, the other's last name only on an arcade flyer). I've also proven you wrong already on the DS chars: the manuals for the first two games go out of their way to show the character full names and not in some 'obscure' or 'hidden' format. It's blatantly there headering each character's movelist. But of course you still are unsure about your own guidelines as shown you'd be more than willing to sidestep them simply with the Jinpachi issue when that doesn't coincide with you guidelines: full name isn't in the select screen or lifebars after all.--Kung Fu Man 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
            • "I'm sorry sir?" Did you not read my previous points about your ridicuous informality and cheekiness of your 'comebacks'. And as for Jinpachi, as his full name is not really mentioned in places outside of the story, his page should be just Jinpachi as that would be his common name. This also fits in with the guidelines we came up with, as even though it's obvious storywise that he is related to Heihachi and Kazuya, Jinpachi's surname is hidden from casual players. In regards to the Darkstalkers pages, surnames hidden in a game manual or flyer is hardly enough to mean they are common. And "already proved me wrong" - I'd like to know at what point you are going to start arguing for the good of Wikipedia and not just against me. Mr.bonus 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Don't get so sure of yourself: I only stress the point because you keep bringing it up. The surnames are NOT hidden, they're in broad daylight and I don't see going the route of en masse disambiguation because their full name isn't called out ever time it turns around. You'd have to be braindead to ignore any of the last names for those characters when they're mentioned enough. The surnames in most cases also end up important enough for their storylines moreso than the more token surnames street fighter characters will occaisonally get, much like Mishima and Kazama carry weight in Tekken's line. Instead we're going to go the blind route and enfore disambiguation all over wikipedia for absolutely no purpose other than "it's a fighter, who cares if they have a full name somewhere". That's really what it boils down to, because you cannot argue a character that gets called "Cloud" throughout an entire game when "Cloud Strife" is mainly in the manual and that the article gets his full name simply because it's an RPG, but another fictional character simply because it's some fighting game gets it's name reduced? That's a preposterous policy. A fair one for wikipedia should be one that can apply to *all* fictional characters despite origin because that would ultimately prevent any complications.

And I'm not done with the Jinpachi point: he states enough times in the prefight dialogue with him his full name, and is called at times by a few of the other fighters simply "Mishima". Given that his full name is obviously more common, it flies in the face of the proposed select screen/lifebar/announcer policy. But if you did that you'd end up having to break your own policy...yet again if you don't, you have an absurd situation of a name being called most common when it is indeed not.

While I'm here, and I sincerely doubt Flakeloaf will leave this little comment, you did indeed go behind my back by whining to him despite your 'head's up' on my talk page, and I consider that a very underhanded move on your part.--Kung Fu Man 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• That makes no sense. If I told you about it, it's not "behind your back". Don't you understand what it means? More contradiction coming from you. Should I have written it on your talk page even though I was talking to Flakeloaf? Mr.bonus 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with KFM here - what is "common" is purely a subjective criterion with a tendency to introduce bias (by defining what "common" means). Binomial nomenclature is objective and has the NPOV. NPOV rules above all other policies. Period. kelvSYC 01:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• So would you say that I was "braindead" then Kung Fu Man? I have ignored these character's full names as I never knew half of them until I saw them on Wiki. I (and loads like me) enjoy playing a game but don't bother looking into the stories of the characters, and for people like me, reading full names such as Sakura Kusagano and Raphael Sorel in the page title is only confusing. And I agree that full names for RPG charcters is different, as simply playing through the game is like reading a backstory, whereas some people just play fighting games for fun, either against the CPU or a human opponent. The point being that an RPG character's full name will be known by all fans of the game, whereas an SF character's name requires extra research to find out (looking through manuals etc) Dan Lander 09:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So how is a person who plays a RPG "just for fun" while skipping all the dialogue and cutscenes different from a person who plays a fighting game "just for fun" and ignores winquotes, intros, and the story? Both players play the game just for the combat system (and possibly overworld stuff). By your logic, both players would tend to ignore full names. Yet one set is listed by full names and the other isn't by your proposal. This is a double standard, which we cannot allow. kelvSYC 05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• In response to KelvSYC - determining a common name is not objective, if the name is 'advertised' enough in game, then it will be used as the page title. We said that if it's announced or written on the player select or during gameplay, then the name would be common. This method does not involve bias and can be applied to any offending article. Dan Lander 09:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm saying this is rediculous and an unrealistic approach to things...whatever the case, I've made my case, I've presented my points, and I really can't say that just because one person such as mr. Lander here does ignores something does not mean the vast majority does. You google the name "Dan" or "Dan Hibiki", and see which gives you better results for searches. Whatever, I'm done and I stand by my points. If JuJube, KelvSYC and SuicideDog end up agreeing with Bonus/Lander/Flakeloaf's proposal just ignore me entirely. I've said the last I will here because sadly I think neither side is going to give any room because we both think we're right steadfast.--Kung Fu Man 13:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What a terrible point. Of course Dan Hibiki is going to be a more relevant search than just Dan, but have you tried typing Dan Street Fighter into google. A much better result than both of your suggestions. I'm guessing you did try it but didn't want to tell us your findings. Being off hand with Dan Lander aswell? Not very civil are you? Mr.bonus 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Christ...To keep it civil however, someone more than readily may or may not know Dan comes from SF or the man in the bloody moon. Though sadly enough even under your criteria it would still be "Dan Hibiki" thanks to SvC Chaos. In fact here's a toss in: what if the character appears in other non-fighting games? Like, say, NamcoXCapcom or the Card Fighters example Johnny brought up. Surely such bits can't just be ignored as they too would factor into the "common names" pool. And Mr.bonus, for someone who shouts a lot on being civil it would be nice if you were instead of crying foul when someone looks at you sideways. Either way since both our methods agree on Dan, I don't see a problem with moving his article to Dan Hibiki (and if you do, then you're pretty much disagreeing with your own point which would be quite silly).--Kung Fu Man 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Obviously your word holds a lot of value. "I'm done and I stand by my points" and "I've said the last I will here", and two seconds later you are back on here whinging. What's with the SVC example? He's called just Dan on that game just as he is on the Alpha series - have a look at this page - http://game.snkplaymore.co.jp/official/svc/chara/chara_top.html - note how all SNK characters use full names and all Capcom's don't. Capcom always treat surnames as outside information - including Dan and Demitri (characters for who you think their full names are common). Mr.bonus 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • As for "you have to be braindead to ignore...." We're not ignoring anything. I suppose you could say that you have to be braindead to ignore that JVC are called Japan Victor Corporation. It's not being ignored - it's the first line of the article. Are you forgetting that we are not arguing to get rid of full names completely, but just from the article title? The article's correct title is JVC as that is their common name in the west, whether you think it's more correct to have the full name or not. Mr.bonus 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Did you happen to check the lifebars for that game and see what name is used?--Kung Fu Man 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Wait...nevermind me, I did myself and it would seem I'm *gasp* wrong. Guess I must've been thinking Mugen instead. Oh well, move back if it makes you feel better. After all disambiguation > common sense.--Kung Fu Man 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • • I wouldn't expect any less from Mugen. It's the kind of people who are interested in Mugen who have already incorrectly named these articles. Mr.bonus 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't spoken much despite the fact that I was the one who opened this case. While I've thought about it, and despite the fact that I'd prefer whole names, I don't feel strongly about either side. I just want there to be a set guideline to follow. Is that a problem? JuJube 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Dunno if you guys noticed, but Basara-kun (talk • contribs) renamed two fighting game articles a couple of weeks ago (Rugal Bernstein and Alfred Airhawk). JuJube 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you discussing about names?

Well, I found this discussion a few hours ago, and after read all the Talk:E. Honda and a good part of this case, at least I can understand about the changes of the article names, like Rugal and Alfred (Fatal Fury), renamed by me. But I think it's better Alfred Airhawk (last name from Real Bout Fatal Fury Special: Dominated Minds) than Alfred (video game character) (the name before my renaming), very ambiguous and confused. I prefer the option proposed by SeizureDog above, in My proposed guidelines. I think better work for improve various video game articles (especially character profiles) instead worrying about names in articles, I saw many profiles abandoned (especially various King of Fighters and SNK Playmore character profiles) and many games with very few or without character profiles (like Buriki One or Variable Geo), even abandoned game articles. I revived various of them and making character profiles from scratch, but I see I'm the only one doing this. I hope this discussion ends soon in a good way, meanwhile I'll continue to contribute data for Wikipedia instead worrying me about names. And sorry for my bad english, KFM can confirms that ;) Basara-kun 15:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

Has consensus been reached on this discussion? Mr.bonus (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) moved Alfred Airhawk to Alfred (Fatal Fury), Rugal Bernstein to Rugal, and Hwang Seong-gyeong to Hwang (Soul Edge) and requested that Seong Han Myeong be moved to Han Myong and Hong Yun-seong be moved to Yun-seong on WP:RM. In all cases Mr.bonus cited this discussion and the one at Talk:E. Honda as justification for the moves. In the case of Hwang Seong-gyeong, Bethereds (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) reverted the move and the article is back at the full name, which seems to indicate that consensus has not been reached. --Bobblehead 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, not yet. Mr.bonus has been jumping the gun and acting like it was, but last I checked there was still a discussion going on and no consensus has been made, no absolute policy set.--Kung Fu Man 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I will add I still support User:SeizureDog's idea.--Kung Fu Man 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to date. I support User:SeizureDog, which is a good compromise between "common names" and "full names" which respect the game's canon but allows readers unfamiliar with the subject to get acquainted. I believe User:Mr.bonus and User:Dan Lander is opposed to it. kelvSYC 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Well, since there's no consensus about the discussion, I revert the changes, only in Alfred (Fatal Fury), the article I supporting now (along with Rick Strowd, the only articles I revived from Fatal Fury series), in waiting of a real consensus. Basara-kun 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As a suggestion, y'all may wish to agree to stop moving articles to your preferred naming convention until a mediated agreement has been reached. Unilateral moves to a preferred naming convention is rarely conducive to a productive negotiating environment. For an interesting read on how negotiations on naming conventions can go wrong due to unilateral moves, you may wish to look at this ArbComm case. --Bobblehead 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seizure Dog's guidelines are far too complicated as he has made 8 points which differ between characters/games while Flakeloaf's guideline can be described in 1 sentence. I don't believe a guideline should fluctuate between characters as it would be too easy to make up more rules as more characters come along. And as for me jumping the gun, no one has really contested these moves except for Bethereds, who at the moment seems to be editting Wiki solely as an excuse to promote Korean subjects over Japanese ones - Talk:Hwang_Seong-gyeong. I moved the articles early as I don't see any valid reason as to why articles should be named after a charcter's less common name and it's baffling this argument has gone on for so long. And I though tyou'd finished Kung Fu Man - obviously you are still checking this discussion daily. Mr.bonus 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you even interested in any mediation at all? You've given really no ground whatsoever during this whole mediation when everyone else was more than willing to, and to top it off keep acting as if this whole matter was already decided and keep resorting to bullying (as a matter of fact I have this on my watch page because I'm interested in the final outcome. I thought this was supposed to be civil, so I don't see where you feel you can throw your weight around and toss peoples' statements back in their faces.)--Kung Fu Man 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also - SeizureDog's guideline isn't "a good compromise between "common names" and "full names"" as he is still stressing for full names in all articles except for Ivy and Rock. That's not a compomise. And omitting middle names doesn't qualify either as they were never included in the first place. Mr.bonus 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, User:Flakeloaf's suggestions were each 6 or 7 points, which could not be summarized in one sentence. Secondly, I fail to see how the guidelines User:Mr.bonus endorses is less consistent than the ones provided by, say, User:SeizureDog. Furthermore, I have also noticed signs of trolling and bad faith. I'm sure all of us are willing to compromise: however, it is to me that User:Mr.bonus has not softened his stance (and is unwilling to do so) in trying to reach a consensus. kelvSYC 05:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would just like to say that my proposed guidelines can be sumarized into a nutshell: "Use a character's full name for article titles unless it is radically different from their common name." I made it more specific since guidelines are best when they aren't vague. Basically, most full names are just the common names with a bit extra information. However, when a character's actual name is different enough from their common name to cause confusion (such as with pseudonyms), I think we would switch back to using common names. Also, most of the "complicated" part of my guidelines applies to dealing with articles using the common names anyways (such as what to put into the perentheses). --SeizureDog 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "most full names are just the common names with a bit extra information" - My point exactly - common names but with extra added trivia that doesn't belong there and most people will be unaware of. That's the whole reason this debate is getting me a little frustrated. Why can't you just think that having the full names on the first line of the article is enough, instead of titling pages after names most games players will have never heard of? Mr.bonus 14:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not as though people can't find the articles at the full name. We're going to be putting them in pipelinks in either case, so in the end there's really no difference as to if it's Sakura or Sakura is there? Using a 'common name' rule just forces debates about "how common a full name has to be before it's the common name" and crap like that. The whole reason this debate is getting me frustrated is that I don't see why we're trying to lower the amount of information. Sure, people may not know that Sakura's full name is Sakura Kasugano, but plenty of people don't know what that ESRB stands for the Entertainment Software Rating Board (and that's the only acronym for ESRB, so it could be there if it wanted to). Fact is, people are still going to find the articles, be confused for half a second, and then learn something new.--SeizureDog 15:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • SeizureDog raises a good point. Does it really matter if the article is at "Sakura (Street Fighter)" or "Sakura Kasugano" since either one will take you to the same place anyway? JuJube 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's all in the titling - it's settled that it doesn't matter how something is linked in the body of an article - it really depends on context. The main issue is article titles, and I haven't seen any convincing arguments that have made me change my position (and others will feel the same way about this as well). On the topic of "it's really this but with extra trivia included", here's a precedent from another field that we can interpret: the article on the FA Premier League club that won the league title in 2002-03 is at Manchester United F.C., not Manchester United or Man United or the like. Clearly Manchester United is more common here, so the "F.C." part is "extra trivia" - yet it is included in the title... kelvSYC 06:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's at least try to keep our examples a bit focused here. For every specifically named article, there's another that goes with a common name. United States instead of The United States of America for instance. Honestly, there's no end to the number of examples either side can produce, so example throwing really won't get us anywhere.--SeizureDog 08:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's end this.

I hope everyone realizes that this case was first requested almost three months ago. I think it's about time that we get this thing settled. Holding a straight vote would be flawed, so I'd like to ask: has anyone has changed their opinion since this all started? Does anyone who was for common names before now support full names or vice versa? If not, then we're just going to just argue about this forever and I request that User:Flakeloaf just make a decision one way or the other. I for one will fully support whatever he determines is best either way. The guideline that's been needed for these articles has been in limbo for too long, and we just need to get these damn articles consistant one way or another. I do request that a guideline page is made though. --SeizureDog 06:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede that if it isn't in the manual or the game itself somewhere it could be fine enough not to include in the topic title. This would include folks like Rolento or Maki in this case, but stuff like Dan Hibiki and Sakura Kasugano should be fine. That's really as far as I'd go with the concession on my stance as it seems to keep both sides happy. Anyway, there ya go.--Kung Fu Man 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar to K F M but without including outside materials such as manuals/flyers. As I've said before, include full name if it is regularly stated on player selects, under lifebars or announced by the game's announcer. So Dan Hibiki, Rolento Shugerg and Demitri Maximoff are not OK, but Robert Garcia, Steve Fox and Sol-Badguy are fine. By the way - where has Flakeloaf disappeared to? Mr.bonus 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mr.bonus what I said included things like winquotes and match text like intros and whatnot. That would basically allow Dan Hibiki and Demitri Maximoff still under your guidelines because at one point or another in the games themselves the surname is mentioned.--Kung Fu Man 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Certanly, since Sakura without Kasugano surname, sounds me like this Sakura, and the same with various characters. Yeah I support SeizureDog and KFM ideas, count with me for them ;) Basara-kun 00:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go along with a "only if it's in the game" guideline. I think that narrowing it down to where it shows up in the game leaves too much to debate, so I would say that as long as it shows up anywhere in-game it's fine. I suppose this would also include console-only story modes as well. That's about as far as I'd be want to bend though.--SeizureDog 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer binomial names where available, and where they may sound like the name of another character - yes, as User:Basara-kun points out, people confuse Sakura Kasugano, a fighting game character, with Sakura Kinomoto, a character from a reasonably-popular anime series (or Kinomoto's voice actor Sakura Tange, who is also the voice of Kasumi in Dead or Alive, IIRC), despite various clear differences (one is six or eight years older than the other, one likes to fight while the other abhors fighting, etc). I'd be partial to "only in game" if the full name is fairly obscure (eg. Rolento Schugerg's last name can be omitted). So in short I'd be onside with User:Kung Fu Man on this. kelvSYC 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• "I'd prefer binomial names where available, and where they may sound like the name of another character - yes, as User:Basara-kun points out, people confuse Sakura Kasugano, a fighting game character, with Sakura Kinomoto"

This makes no difference as to how articles should be named, that's not our problem, but Capcom's for naming a character after a name already used by another "famous" character. That's what disambiguation and parenthesis is for. Hugo from SFIII could also be confused with this abomination - Hugo (troll) - but that doesn't mean we need to have a last name applied to Hugo to avoid confusion. Hugo (Street Fighter) is still the correct article name. Mr.bonus 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your logic there is flawed though Mr.bonus. Hugo has no official last name by capcom as of yet: it's only typically assumed to be Andore due to several key facts. What they're refering to are characters whose names are known and can be taken from official sources.--Kung Fu Man 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hugo has no canonical last name - just a mention that he is related to Andorre (and that Poison is his manager and Bao a fan), so that's a moot point. kelvSYC 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• My logic is not flawed. The only reason articles are in this mess is because people have been avoiding disambiguation like the plague. Because Rock (Soul Edge) includes brackets, users settled for a ridiculously unknown name; Nathaniel "Rock" Adams. Same situation with naming Lizardman's article Aeon Calcos. It's the same with all these articles but to a lesser extent. Naming Sakura's article, Sakura Kasugano gets rid of brackets, but is titling the article after a name very few people are familiar with. And by the way, my point with Hugo was that there are 2 characters named just Hugo, adding last names to some articles is not a good way of differentiating between them and is inconsistent. There is always going to be pages such as Ryu (Street Fighter) and Charlie (Street Fighter), adding last names to distinguish between articles is not a good argument for titling articles after their full name. Placing brackets onto the end of the character's name is just as effective and can be applied to all articles without trying to force feed users with extra trivia. Mr.bonus 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, please, stop that right now. I'm refering specificly to the bit of arguing whether a name is more common or not as that's your POV. And we've already discussed that we shouldn't use the guideline "this is common and well known and this isn't" because it's all perspective, not fact.--Kung Fu Man 04:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another potential situation

• There's another potential situation, related to "shoto"-type articles such as Ryu (Street Fighter) and use of the term "Ansatsuken", that may pop up. I was wondering if it does happen, should I open another cabal case, or just talk about it here?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JuJube (talk • contribs).
  • What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking in terms of what we have at 'shōtō' and 'ansatsuken'? What does that have to do with anything? Could you clarify what the actual problem/debate is? --SeizureDog 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, Ryu/Ken/Akuma (a.k.a. "shotos") have their martial art listed as "Ansatsuken" in all official sources, the permutation of which is the book Street Fighter Eternal, but User:Jonny2x4 wants to change it to "Ansatsuken taught by Gouken", stating that the style "Ansatsuken" was the one created by Goutetsu, and that it shouldn't apply to Ryu and Ken's styles. This already doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but he already reverted my change yesterday and I don't want to get caught up in another ridiculous edit war. I'm making the changes and sourcing the book today, and that's all I'll do for the articles now. JuJube 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, sounds like a whole lot of confusing stuff. If you can source and he can't (or doesn't want to) I'd say you win out for now though. But please don't make this mediation more bogged down than it already is. (Like a said, 3 months in waiting for resolution. Sheesh)--SeizureDog 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)