Board Thread:Administrative/@comment-16461120-20160218162200/@comment-10473115-20160220114152

I don't quite understand why you suggest using second most known name. Do you mean that most known is many times a codename? And I think that how many years a character has referred by some name is only one of the arguments and should not be only deciding factor. Ultimately most well known name have to be decided by founding a consensus from the discussion.

Examples are good way to clarify the meaning so here's what I suggest on those. I also marked which should be changes according to our current policy.


 * Luke Cage (Earth-616) --> Luke Cage
 * Wolverine (James "Logan" Howlett) should be James "Logan" Howlett (Earth-616) --> Wolverine
 * Peter Parker (Ben Reilly) (Earth-616) --> Ben Reilly
 * Bentley Wittman (Earth-616) should be The Wizard (Earth-616) --> Wizard
 * Madelyne Pryor (Earth-616) should be Jean Grey (Madelyne Pryor) (Earth-616) --> Madelyne Pryor
 * Stepford Cuckoos (Earth-616) (teams are not referred on our policy) --> Stepford Cuckoos
 * Celeste Cuckoo (Earth-616) should be Emma Frost (Celeste Cuckoo) (Earth-616) --> Celeste Cuckoo
 * Susan Storm (Earth-616) --> Invisible Woman
 * Mary Jane Watson (Earth-616) --> Mary Jane Watson
 * Hulk (Robert Bruce Banner) should be Robert Bruce Banner (Earth-616) --> Hulk
 * Deadpool (Wade Wilson) should be Wade Wilson (Earth-616) or Deadpool (Jack) (Earth-616) --> Deadpool

As you can see we haven't been able to enforce our current naming policy on many of those pages so clearly it should be revised. We have made a very significant exception for the major characters without a mention on naming policy. To help our discussion, I made a list of few questions.


 * 1) How character pages should be named? (Real name, most well known name (including codenames), most well known real name)
 * 2) Do we need an Earth-designation for Earth-616?
 * 3) Should clones have a unique naming policy?

1. Most well known name. That would help linking, navigation, category sorting and SEO. 2. No. Omitting it would have same benefits as above. 3. No. For the same reasons and bad examples of it could be found easily.

ADour wrote: I don't think SEO-ing our articles is exactly pivotal for helping our traffic. The list of current top pages ... includes relatively obscure articles, which means that people can get their way around our wiki not implementing SEO actively. If you mean THIS list, it only proves that people still can found a way to visit the site despite our poor SEO. Page name have to mean something because we have changed it for major characters.