Talk:Battlestars

Was just coming over to this article to suggest moving it, but I see we have a template already. So, yeah. "Battlestars" is more proper. You wouldn't put the Neo-Knights at "Neo-Knight" or the Avengers at "Avenger," because the plural term is the proper team name ("New Warriors" not "New Warrior," "X-Men" not "X-Man," and so on). Same case here. Do we want it to be "Battlestars (group)" or "Battlestars (team)", or would that be unnecessary, since the other page (for the manga) has a "The" in front of it? - Chris McFeely 10:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If the page is titled for the franchise- then yes, it should be plural. Because that's it's name. You don't make the article about the fast-food chain under 'McDonald'. (to pull a really lousy example out of my ass.) -Derik 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Derik, the page Chris is talking about is titled for the team, not the franchise, so I'm not sure what your point is. I agree that this page should be Battlestars, not Battlestar. They are a team, not some sort of subgroup like Minicon or Autobot. I think doing either "Battlestars (group)" or "Battlestars (team)" makes the most sense. Presumably, the topic formatting on this wiki is similar to that of Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia listing appears to add the parenthetical to similar titles that aren't completely identical. For example, Avengers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers The Avengers and Avenger bother have a parenthetical after them. --Might Gaine 13:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Battlestars" is the title for the team's article, while "The Battlestars" is the title for the manga. It's similar to "Headmaster (technology)" for the technology and "The Headmasters" for the franchise. Just like Chris said, (group) or (team) would be unnecessary, since the other page (for the manga) has a "The" in front of it. ^^

ps. yeh... I think I need to change the nav-template's name. Thanks for notice. :) --TX55 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody'd have to delete Battlestars to move this page there. Chris can do this. —Interrobang 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think adding the parenthetical would make this much less confusing. It's not just about what technically doesn't conflict, but also about clarity to readers. Plus, Wikipedia has set the standard for title formatting, and I don't see why we should deviate from that by leaving out parentheticals where it is technically unnecessary but would stillgreatly improve clarity. --Might Gaine 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you come to Battlestars and are unsure which use of the word you've hit upon, look down one line, and there is a disambig tag which clears it up just as easily as an unnecessary (and redundant) parenthetical. --ItsWalky 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel pretty strongly that you're wrong about it being unnecessary, if for no other reason than Wikipedia's been at this for a while, so they know what works best more than you/we do. Besides, some redundancy can be a good thing. If the reader misses the little italic text, they'll probably catch the parenthetical. But, anyway, more importantly, "The Battlestars" (formerly "Battlestars" before "Battlestar" became "Battlestars") page has disappeared altogether now... --Might Gaine 12:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this "Wikipedia disambiguates stuff, even if they don't have the exact same name." Like us, they only do it when absolutely necessary (Wikipedia:Fifth Element, Wikipedia:The Fifth Element). And the former "Battlestars" page is Return of Convoy. It's there, just under another name. —Interrobang 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)