Talk:Princess Leia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Princess Leia Organa)
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
 

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)

Episode 9[edit]

Kathleen Kennedy apparently said that Carrie Fisher would not appear in Episode 9. Well, this article isn't on Carrie Fisher, it's on Princess Leia. Unless she states the role will not be recast, there shouldn't be anything indicating that Princess Leia won't appear in episode 9, just that Carrie Fisher won't. Curse those dang bras... -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a very good point! Fixing that now.— TAnthonyTalk 22:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Too long[edit]

It's clearly crazy to have such a lengthy article for a FICTIONAL character when we can't keep a page up on REAL people who do prominent things. There is an incredible amount of disproportionate significance given to FICTIONAL CHARACTERS on Wikipedia. I would encourage active editors to work on editing down (deleting) such unnecessary information. Tleeditor (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Out of place music discussion[edit]

The last paragraph of "Creation and casting" has nothing to do with the creation or casting of the character. It definitely belongs in the article, but I'm torn between (a) moving it out to its own section (which could be expanded with thorough analysis of its use in the films, assuming sources for such exist) and (b) creating a subsection at the end of "Creation and casting" called, say, "Music" and renaming the main section to something generix like "Concept". Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)