Talk:Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move 18 June 2015[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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)



Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II – The Sith LordsStar Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords – My bold rename by the above rationale was reverted, so per BRD, I'm bringing it to discussion. I think I showed above that the proposed name is more common in the reliable sources (especially those used in the article) than the current unwieldy one with the en dash. Alternatively, I think Knights of the Old Republic II could suffice as the game's most common name, but that might be more controversial than as proposed. – czar 15:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Rename, as nominator. – czar 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for bringing this to discussion. While I do know that no source has referred to it as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II – The Sith Lords, I do think that Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords wouldn't be an appropriate name either because the lack of punctuation might confuse readers. Plus there's the fact the title for the first game is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, so it would be inconsistent to have one with the colon and one without. I also think that the sources that write it as Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords do it informally and without much thought. I could settle for a rename to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (with two colons), but I think removing The Sith Lords part would make an incorrect title since those words are part of the cover art. Markhoris (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Markhoris, Ferret, and FoCuSandLeArN, Wikipedia uses the name that the most prominent sources use. This is precisely to avoid these types of discussions about the box art or someone's personal preferences or, especially, that it might confuse readers. If IGN and other major sources used that phrasing, their editorial oversight (which is better than ours) already made the call that their title was stylistically appropriate and not confusing for readers. It is not "informal" or "without much thought". And consistency within the series is not an issue of ours. We use what the sources use—that's the WP policy. – czar 22:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like to direct you to these rules, namely:
  1. Use the most commonly accepted English name first, if one exists. This is usually the official title in the initial English release, but not always. Subtitles and pre-titles are allowed if deemed appropriate but are not necessary and pre-titles should be replaced once an official title has been announced. (The subtitle has been used in all but one of the reviews sources, this falls under the official title guideline.)
  2. When naming articles for specific games in a series it is best to be consistent throughout the entire series as much as possible. This includes the use of subtitles and numbering. Exceptions exist when two different games are released under two completely different titles (this is why there should be a colon after the Star Wars part in the title). Markhoris (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
How does a primary source such as the developer's site factor in, which uses the double colon form? Additionally, some of the sources you used in your first move use multiple forms in different articles. The GameSpot E3 coverage you linked is one way, while a different GameSpot E3 coverage article uses the double colon format. IGN has also used the double colon form. 1up used the double colon format, listed in the "Vitals" infobox and at the bottom, while abbreviating KOTOR in the title. GameSpy used the double colon format for the Steam release. Kotaku drops the subtitle here, but keeps the first colon. RockPaperScissors uses double colons. There seem to be plenty of prominent sources using the double colon format, and almost all of these are sources the article already uses. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd also add these: PC Gamer uses the colon after "Star Wars"; Game Informer refers to it as only "The Sith Lords"; in another article, Kotaku uses Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2 in the title and Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords in the body of the article; IGN referred to it as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II, The Sith Lords in their PC review; RPGamer called it Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. --Markhoris (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret, you wouldn't consider that cherry picking? I have no personal preference here—I went through the refs in the article and found them predominantly without the SW/KOTOR colon. The official listings at IGN and GameSpy also drop the same colon despite, yes, inconsistently using the colon in some articles. Still, the sources largely omit that first colon (likely to avoid the awkward double colon)—or is that point contested? @Markhoris, I'm familiar with the naming conventions. They reaffirm that what matters most is how the sources present the name (not our interpretation of the box art), and I don't see the en dash or double colon title in wide circulation. Based on the sources, I think the names in widest circulation are my two suggestions (single colon or dropping the Star Wars prefix/Sith Lords subtitle altogether). For instance, ferret and I just referenced IGN and GameSpy. They use a variety of names for the game, but most often used either single colon or just "KOTOR II". That would be its common name, though the full name still goes in the lede. – czar 04:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You're completely ignoring the #2 rule I posted earlier about being as consistent as possible throughout the series. And I don't understand why you want to drop the Star Wars/The Sith Lords part when nearly all sources use both of them. Also, if you think that using a double colon is awkward, don't you think having no punctuation between "Star Wars" and "Knights of the Old Republic II", two parts of the title that are unrelated, would be even more awkward? --Markhoris (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't. Again, the sources do the work of deciding the best way to style the title for us. The sources would use the double colon if they felt it was more appropriate. The concern about series titling consistency takes a backseat to the primacy of the common name. – czar 17:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the common name guideline you're linking to: "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The version with the double colon is the accurate name for it according to Obsidian's website which ferret linked above. Anyway, I agree with what The Millionth One said below. --Markhoris (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I highly suggest reading the whole thing: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. But even the "official name" uses the single colon (see separate bullet below). – czar 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Also re: series consistency, there was a recent thread at WT:VG that concluded that series often do not use colons consistently across titles and do not need to be "standardized" to one form or another (e.g., between SW and KOTOR). – czar 05:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alternate I would support Markhoris alternative suggestion, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, which keeps it in line with the related articles Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (series). Minor note, the template already using a piped link with a colon before the subtitle. I would be curious if the Star Wars wikiproject might have guidelines concerning scenarios such as this though. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support previous commenter. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know you haven't actually suggested using it, but I'd dispute using KOTOR II. It's less a nickname and more a quick acronym. The most recognisable name, to people who don't regularly game and so on, would probably be the full title over it. On colons, this being a minor punctuation thing, probably both are used interchangeably enough that it doesn't really matter -- I'd look at official sources for the sake of accuracy, especially since most won't realize we're using a "common name" (or we have a lead that goes "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic: The Sith Lords, also known as Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic: The Sith Lords..."). – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 11:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The suggestion would have been to spell it out, of course (Knights of the Old Republic II), but for now we're on the long name for the lede/title. Also it wouldn't make sense to use an "also known as" parenthetical for the comma—the idea is to only have the long name once and that it should reflect the sources in not using the two colons. – czar 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, right, the full Knights... suggestion makes a lot more sense, though I'm not sure I'd get behind it entirely. It's still, I think, mainly just a shortening of its "actual" known name. The full name would still be the most recognisable, I feel. Contrast, say, FIFA or Liberace, who would rarely ever be referred to in full (and not just because their names are a handful). I wouldn't overly object, though. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: the "official name", I'm looking at the PC manual and they use the single colon as proposed. (As does the Xbox manual, p. 3.) LucasArts apparently has no official website for the game, so this is as official as it gets. – czar 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    That being the case, and a lot of the other sources not really opposing it, I support the single-colon version, as inconsistent as it is with the rest of the series. Well, unless we find anything more to overturn that. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    Since the manual uses the single colon, I now support the single colon version, Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. Markhoris (User talk) (Special:Contributions) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    I'll go with the manual as well. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2015 (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.

Name of Exile[edit]

The prior "consensus" - which was two users - was that the name Meetra Surik and the Exile being female doesn't belong here because "Since the character was never named in KOTOR 2 and no one involved with the game development has back-identified him from "The Old Republic" to KOTOR 2, it shouldn't be put into this page as it would basically amount to unreferenced OR." That's not how sources work. The game is part of the overall Star Wars universe, and Lucasfi;m (now Disney) decided how the game fit into the broader universe. That's certainly relevant, at least in a brief mention. I think the fact that they decided the Exile is female is relevant, as most main characters aren't. Mentioning that the player can choose either sex and any name, but that, canonically, for other stories referencing the game, she's Meetra Surik, is sufficient.

While Wookieepedia might not be reliable, the sources it cites are. The sources are the guide to droids, (formerly) referenced in the article, which calls the Exile "she", and other Star Wars books, such as "The Old Republic: Revan" give her a name. It's hardly OR to say that Source A (the game) gives us a character, and Source B (the book) describes that character to make it obvious who it is and gives her a name. Is it OR if a news article says "the Queen" did something newsworthy but never specifically names Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in it, but it's obvious who the article's about? Of course not - that sort of synthesis is just editing. Besides, we're talking about a Star Wars video game, and fictional books are going to be sources for any kind of work where there's an entire fictional universe. One episode of a TV series can refer to a character in a previous episode, and both can go in an article about the character without a source coming right out and saying they're the same person.

WP:INUNIVERSE doesn't apply, since "canon status" is directed as much to future writers and readers in the real world as it is to other characters in-universe. PaulGS (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with including canon here. While I wouldn't want the whole article, or the plot of the game, addressing the player as "Meetra Surik", I believe it's worth mentioning. KotOR II isn't quite in a vacuum, and with the Exile appearing in semi-follow-ups like Revan and The Old Republic, I think to fully address the game mentioning canon is warranted, though personally I wouldn't really go that much more than a sentence. Not to derail, but similarly, I think it might be worth mentioning works like Revan and "Unseen, Unheard" -- for similar reasons to why a lot of game articles have "Sequel" sections. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. The article doesn't need to go into all kinds of detail or the plot of the other books, and I'm fine with referring to "The Exile" in the plot section, but a sentence or two on how the game fits into the wider Star Wars world seems appropriate. PaulGS (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the source you were using (The New Essential Guide to Droids) is reliable. It seems to be written from an in-universe perspective, and it appears it doesn't actually say that the Exile is a female, it just refers to them as one. The name "Meetra Surik" is also not mentioned in the book. Another concern of mine is whether or not the Exile being a female was actually decided by the people that wrote KOTOR2, the Obsidian team. Markhoris (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
From the gameplay perspective, the character's name is whatever the player types in at the beginning, likewise gender and class. The real-world perspective is that this character's gender, path, name, etc. is entirely up the player. It makes pronouns difficult (he/she) or leads to awkward phrasing (the player's character) in writing a plot or gameplay summary, but it's hews to the real-world reality. That the license-holders later winnow in on specific canon traits and outcomes is worth including in the article, but I disagree with the notion that the gameplay summary should be written with/through that character's name, gender, light/dark choices, etc. lens. The article on The Force Unleashed (which, granted, has fewer choices), handles it well: when articulating the two branching story outcomes, it mentions and cites that one of these is the canon outcome. Ditto the X-Wing article, which IDs Keyan Farlander but refers to "the player's" actions. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to ping the Video Games wikiproject talk page for broader input? --EEMIV (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, there don't seem to be any reliable sources mentioning this "canon" info. That's my problem. Markhoris (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The New Essential Guide to Droids is an official reference book, so probably would reliable in terms of describing the "overall canon". That it's written in-universe isn't too much of a problem, I think -- the in-universe information is the canon. Official works like Revan are also canon novels (Revan is where the name "Meetra Surik" comes from). Ultimately, I think at least it should be petty easy to say something along the lines of "Later works treat the Exile as a female...", which is perhaps more clearly verifiable. If we went with the suggestion I made earlier, a small section like "Follow-ups and sequels" (probably not actually called that), we could also fit that in pretty easily and then just name the works and date, maybe any important details, and it'd be clearly separate from the actual "plot" of the game. For these purposes, I don't think Obsidian's say is really necessary. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Something along the lines of EEMIV's suggestion is good. I had previously used Surik in the plot summary to make it easier to read (no he/she, singular they, "the Exile was aided by the Exile's companion", and such. But noting any "canon" information separately might be better. Maybe it should be a separate section noting that, in later works, the game is incorporated into the broader universe with a female Exile named Meetra Surik, a brief summary of what the character does in other works, since I don't think she's notable enough for her own article, and noting which choices are considered canon. I seem to remember that in both KOTOR and KOTOR 2, the light-side path is the canon one, but don't have a reference for that. Obsidian may not have come up with the later works, but they don't own the character - Lucasfilm did, and they authorised the other works. PaulGS (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

The plot summary is a mess. Regardless of whether the Exile's canonical sex is mentioned in the article, referring to the Exile as "they" is unreadable.

"the Exile is sedated by HK-50, an assassin droid, to be delivered to a crime syndicate... They are rescued by Kreia, with whom they form a Force Bond" Who's rescued? The Exile and HK-50, or just one of them? Does the droid form a bond with Kreia?

"The Exile then travels to four worlds to find reclusive Jedi Masters and either begs their aid or kills them in revenge over their treatment" Whose treatment?

"As the Exile continues their journey, they meet several individuals that join them in their quest" How can the Exile continue "their journey"? Wouldn't the entire group do that?

"The Exile defeats Traya... Depending on the Exile's alignment, they either order the destruction of Malachor V... or remain on Malachor V" How can Traya order anything if she's dead?

The plot summary needs a singular pronoun - it can't alternate between singular and plural when it's discussing numerous people. I realise that "he or she" is awkward, but "they" is plural, and, in this context, very ambiguous. Since - like it or not - the Exile is canonically female, I suggest female pronouns for readability. "He" would be tolerable, but my second choice here. PaulGS (talk)