Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20160220115220/@comment-1487274-20160221152953

Mrkermit wrote:
 * 1) That's a good point as it could/would lead to more discussions about the right name for a page. However, ultimately discussion shouldn't be feared if it would lead to better results. I think that you misunderstood most well known name, as it wouldn't necessarily mean code name. Monica Rambeau should remain Monica Rambeau and Ms. Marvel should remain disambiguation page.
 * 2) I think that I have to make most significant benefit little more clear: instead of  Carol Danvers  we could write just  Carol Danvers . As an editor, I think that would be a huge improvement.

Discussion isn't bad, but what you propose means discussion for hundreeds or even thousands pages, that in my opinion is impossible and unnecessary. I think it would be confusing and counterintuitive, if some characters are referred by name, second by codename, and others by name and codename simultaneously. And not every character named the same in different realities, which means the "most known name" for different realities may be different which will increase the mess. For example, when I add the characters in the comics, I'm just typing their names and add reality number. But if change everything as you suggest, then I will need to first find the pages of all these characters to see how are they named in the database. Therefore, instead of simplifying the work of editors it will complicate it. And again, I think it would be confusing, if some pages like "Ms. Marvel" would be a disambiguation page, while "Carol Danvers" would be a character page. For me "Carol Danvers (Earth-616)" is a page for concrete character from concrete reality, while "Carol Danvers" is a page for all versions of the character in all realities, so when I'm looking to pages like "Carol Danvers" without any earth-designation, then I assume that it's a disambiguation page. Earth-designation and same name-pattern helps me to easily distinguish pages just by title, without even opening them. But maybe that's just me.

I think current naming convention is good and only needs few improvements here and there, not a complete overhaul.

Mrkermit wrote: I don't see any problems with our templates but would be interested to hear. There very well could be some I just haven't thought of. Only one I know to use them is disambiguation template and that isn't big problem. Disambiguation template is the first in my mind, but I also think auto-categorizing templates, such as team-members template will be broken. As I understand these templates automatically categorize pages based on the earth-designation, otherwise it will need to be done manually.