Talk:Princess Leia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 7 December 2015 for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon
 

Leia Organa[edit]

According to the Sunday, December 6, 2015 LA Times article, "'Star Wars': The Women Blasting Bounderies", the 2015 film reintroduces Leia as a general "very much in command" who is no longer a princess. Should the article be renamed and updated to reflect that she was a princess, past-tense? --Samantha Ireland (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The page should be called "Leia Organa", as that applies to all the films she appears in, including Revenge of the Sith, A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 12:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The most common name is "Princess Leia", so the name of the article should remanin the same. RJ4 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The stats collected for the Requested move above establish that the common name is Princess Leia.— TAnthonyTalk 15:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm updating the search for the sake of this discussion: a Google news archive search gives 455,000 results for "Princess Leia", compared to 5320 for "Leia Organa and only 823 for "Princess Leia Organa". Same with Google books: 22,300 results for "Princess Leia", compared to 6000 for "Leia Organa" and 2760 for "Princess Leia Organa".— TAnthonyTalk 18:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't really care either way, but presumably the OP was suggesting removing the "Princess" part, because she isn't a princess in every instalment, apparently. So the article would be renamed to "Leia Organa" or even just "Leia" or something, not "Princess Leia Organa". Popcornduff (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I forgot to add "Leia Organa" which I just did ... but regardless of her current title or whatever in the latest film, the article should be named per the common name for the character in the real world, which is simply Princess Leia. — TAnthonyTalk 18:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, cool. 04:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How Many Children?[edit]

How many chidren do Leaia and Han have? There appears to be a discrepancy here. Is Han Solo killed by his son, who has gone to the dark side, or what? I will explain tomorrow, bur I really would like to know who the Organa-Solo children are. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The new film establishes that they have one son, Ben (Kylo Ren), who has gone to the dark side and kills Han. In the novels from the 1990s and 2000s, which are now non-canon, they have three children ... one of whom also turns evil, but his name is Jacen Solo.— TAnthonyTalk 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
So the real problem appears to be that there is a split in the canon between the Expanded Universe and the new movie. I think that the articles should be updated to reflect the discrepancy, although now the movie is canon and the novels are non-canon to the extent that they differ. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
As I just noted at Talk:Kylo Ren, the infobox and lead of this article specify the alternate continuities, and Kylo/Ben is noted in the Force Awakens section. It couldn't be clearer. This article is structured from a real-world perspective where all works are presented.— TAnthonyTalk 17:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. While a number of oppose !votes really made no argument and were thus given little consideration, it's pretty clear that there's consensus against the move at present. It will be worth revisiting the subject in the future as more sources (and films) come out that refer to the character as other than "Princess". Cúchullain t/c 22:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)



Princess LeiaLeia – "Leia" currently redirects here. And she is no longer a princess (as seen in The Force Awakens, which is canon). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The most common name is "Princess Leia", so the name of the article should remain the same. RJ4 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As discussed many times in the past (most recently above), the WP:COMMMONNAME is overwhelmingly "Princess Leia". The new film has yet to change that.— TAnthonyTalk 16:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CRITERIA since "Leia" is still recognizable, precise, and concise. The character is clearly no longer "Princess Leia" in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the biggest movie of 2015. "Leia" is the most common root name here. (If "Leia" meant other things, I would have supported Leia (Star Wars) instead, but "Leia" stands alone apparently.) The opening sentence can mention "also known as Princess Leia". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The film came out a month ago, it cannot possibly undo 40 years of sources and collective humanity calling her Princess Leia. So the current title most readily satisfies the "naturalness" component of WP:CRITERIA (which Leia alone does not), and meets all the others as well. And for the in-universe record, the novelization mentions that she remains a princess but that she doesn't like to be called that. But we don't name Wikipedia articles based on what characters want LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 17:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And "biggest film of 2015" that it may be (which doesn't matter), many/most of the sources I've seen reviewing and discussing the film have called her Princess Leia anyway.— TAnthonyTalk 17:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
History can be used as precedent to keep an article title, but it does not always apply. We've changed the article title if a country changes its name, if a company changes its name, or if a transgender person changes their name. Here we are dealing with a fictional character, and I do not see any guidelines for such topics. I do see sources still use "Princess Leia" even with the new movie, but I also see sources using just "Leia". I think WP:CRITERIA can still apply here where "Leia" is still recognizable even as it is more concise. The opening sentence can include "past" and "current" detail pertaining to the character. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A real-life country or person changing their name creates a legal and respectful duty to use that name because the entity wishes it to be used, we don't have that obligation here.— TAnthonyTalk 18:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
IMO, you're looking at this in an in-universe manner; here in the real world people think of her as Princess Leia, it's practically reflexive when thinking of/talking about the character and is the most obvious search term.— TAnthonyTalk 18:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That's Princess Leia. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, even if we look at it from an in Universe perspective should still be princess Leia, just as Edward VIII is at his best known royal title and not as the Duke of Windsor - his title in the last "canonical episodes".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose her status in the canon movies is irrelevant. What is relevant is how readers know her.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it possible that more older users would recognize her as Princess Leia and younger users are looking for her as just Leia? I'm not wedded to either name, as long as there is a redirect. Personally, I think of her as "Princess Leia," but I'm over 40 and that may color how I see her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well the film only just came out, and in the cultural consciousness she has always been Princess Leia, so it seems to me like anyone who was aware of the character before this Fall would know her that way? — TAnthonyTalk 20:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sources for discussion:
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
They are all entirely irrelevant, because they do not show that she is now better known simply as Leia, only that her character transitions to a new role within the fictional universe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hardly "entirely irrelevant". There are no set rules here for how to name articles after fictional characters. "Leia" is still recognizable on its own, and the above links discuss going from being princess to general. So the core identity is "Leia". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, entirely irrelevant - there is no policy suggesting that fictional "core identity" has any relevance for what to name an article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to be entirely dismissive. There is no policy about fictional characters at all. WP:CRITERIA is what we have, and it is possible to still have an identifiable article title in "Leia" especially when sources talk about how she has gone from being a princess to being a general. The sources above discuss the relevance of a "Princess" title being applied here. What do you think needs to happen in terms of coverage for it to be just "Leia"? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Evidence that "Leia" has replaced "Princess Leia" as the most common way of referring to the character in the coverage. No argument based on in world development will have any effect on where the article should be located.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME. And WP:INUNIVERSE. And the fact that the closing credits for The Force Awakens still credit the role as "Princess Leia". That's right, Carrie Fisher is still credited as playing "Princess Leia", not anything else. We write from an out-of-universe perspective. oknazevad (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    That's a fair point about the credits. I was wondering that since I could not recall what they showed. Sources writing from an out-of-universe perspective (such as the two above) do discuss "Leia" apart from being "Princess Leia". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Topic for comparison: James T. Kirk is also widely known as Captain Kirk but has also been known as Admiral Kirk and Commander Kirk (on a much lesser scale). The Wikipedia article gives his full name without title. Should that article be at Captain Kirk? If not, then this would be inconsistent. I am suggesting that a character's attached title is not immutable and does not have to be treated as such here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well (surprisingly) a Google search favors James T. Kirk over Captain Kirk. But I don't think that has any bearing on this argument, this is more like Princess Diana vs. Diana (though obviously "Leia" is more unique than "Diana"). I don't think I'm seeing a real-world justification to your change except that the film has deprecated Princess, which is irrelevant, as Maunus has noted.— TAnthonyTalk 22:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this is renamed it should be to Leia Organa -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TAnthony. sst 13:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Oknazevad. Nothing to show that the CommonName has changed yet. Meters (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The common name is still "Princess Leia". --Carnildo (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The 'common name' that people still largely use is "Princess Leia". It shouldn't move.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Overwhelmingly the common name for the character. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ingvild Deila[edit]

I disagree with listing Ingvild Deila in the infobox for portraying the character in Rogue One. It was a brief cameo and Carrie Fisher's face and voice was used. Deila was no more than a stand in or stunt actor. This seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE. If nobody objects, I'm going to remove her. JDDJS (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I object. She was listed in the closing credits. Therefore she's on record as having played the character, and should be listed as such. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I was going to say, I removed her previously on the same grounds, and was reverted on the basis that Deila was credited in the film. The procedure in articles for soap opera characters (who often have many portrayers) has historically been to list actors who played the roles in a significant way in the infobox, but any babies or non-speaking children, or temporary fill-ins during illness or flashbacks, be listed in the prose section of the article about Portrayal. In the case of soap operas, I think this was a means to minimize clutter in the already-sprawling infoboxes. I agree that putting Deila in the infobox makes more of her contribution than is probably necessary, but the baby from Revenge of the Sith is in there too LOL.— TAnthonyTalk 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also all for removing the baby as well. If more editors don't get involved in this discussion, I'll start a request for comment. I just think that it's really a case of WP:UNDUE to list her in the infobox. JDDJS (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)