Talk:Alternate character

Merge with Multi
I suggest merging this article with Multi. I am more used to the term "Alternate character" than Multi, so I propose merging to this article. Any objections? Clement Cherlin 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I too have seen alternate/alt in much wider use than Multi, so I suggest the Multi article is merged here and turned into a disambig page (like someone suggests in Talk:Multi. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.196.72 (talk • contribs).

Move back to Alternate character

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative character → Alternate character – Arguments have been made below; move remains contentious. Requesting a close of some kind. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC) This article was recently moved from Alternate character to Alternative character, in a a misapplication of WP:COMMONALITY. Since "alternate character" is the actual term in common use for this subject, it the proper name of the topic per WP:TITLE and particularly WP:COMMONNAME. (WP:COMMONALITY is meant to govern essentially discretionary choices of language use, mainly in article text, and I'd go so far as to say it should not be applied to article titles at all except when the title itself is essentially made-up, as with some list topics.) I propose that it be moved over redirect back to Alternate character, with Alternative character retained as a redirect.


 * Support as nominator. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will note here that the context where the phrase "alternative character" has currency is in "alternative character interpretation" and its subset "alternative character art". The words are not interchangeable in this context because of established usage of both cases. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Alternate character is a term I've seen used many times in the industry, and truthfully I've never seen "alternative character" used in the sense the article lays out. --Teancum (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – There is no actual name for it. It's just been called an alternative or alternate character. You may say "alternate" but I "alternative". This is no different to any other alternative vs alternate usage.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an actual name for it, as established by usage. MMORPG does not start standing for Massively Multiuser Online Role-Playing Game because you decide Multiplayer and Multiuser mean the same thing, and "alt" (this being what people normally say) does not start being short for "alternative character" rather than "alternate character" because you decide they're interchangeable.  "Alternative character" is at least sourceable enough to be worth keeping as a redirect, but it's very far from the WP:COMMONNAME of the topic.  A MoS guideline like WP:COMMONALITY cannot override a policy like WP:COMMONNAME. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no guideline officially overrides any guideline, but standard procedure is that WP:COMMONALITY and WP:ENGVAR override WP:COMMONNAME. Just because there are more Americans than Brits and most gaming companies are American, does not mean that whatever they say should be used over whatever anyone else says. 05:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence that 1) the "standard procedure" is indeed as you indicate, 2) gamers who are users of British English do, in fact, say "alternative character" rather than "alternate character"? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This Google search returned someone of unknown nationality using "alternative" on a forum and an American website using "alternative", among others. Proof that WP:ENGVAR overrides WP:COMMONNAME is the existence of British English on Wikipedia. More people spell humour without a U, more people spell grey with an A and more people spell cheque differently. There may be more Americans and Canadians than there are Brits, Irish people, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans, but that doesn't mean that American usage must automatically be used because it's more common. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't explain much, but it doesn't apply to minor differences between American and British English. Per WP:COMMONALITY, we should use "alternative" because that word exists in both British and American English with the same meaning.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  02:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR tells us to retain the existing variety of english. If you support that guideline, why did you change it? - MrOllie (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is isn't actually an WP:ENGVAR issue. "Alternative" is perfectly correct in American English too. WP:COMMONALITY says to use "alternative" instead of "alternate" because "alternate character" is nonsensical outside of North American English (although realistically non-Americans will get what it means).  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  09:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Alternate character is the common usage and should be the article title. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the common usage only for speakers of American English. I wish you people would listen.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deactivated the template as no admin actions are needed at the moment. If you'd like more input, please list it at WP:RM instead. SmartSE (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NOBODY calls it a multi. Onyx321 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that relevant?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment – If anyone had actually bothered to read the policy WP:Article titles which contains WP:COMMONNAME, they would have seen that it is policy that American English is not preferred over British English just because more people speak American English. So this page should retain its current title per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONALITY.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. As most English-language MMORPGs are American-made, and most players are North American, it's not surprising that "alternate character" has become the standard term.  "Alternative character" is almost unheard of, rendering WP:COMMONALITY not applicable.  Furthermore, if we take WP:RETAIN into account, the article was originally titled alternate character.  So it is to there it should be returned.  Powers T 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONALITY overrides WP:RETAIN. WP:COMMONALITY is policy and it does not state "Follow this policy unless writing about an American topic". "Alternate characters", to me, means character that are constantly switched between back and forth.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what I wrote, or just focus in on a particular all-caps shortcut I used and respond to your straw-man version of what you think I might have written? As I said, WP:COMMONALITY is not really applicable here (I said nothing about it being overridden by WP:RETAIN, nor about being applied only to non-American topics).  First of all, COMMONALITY is not itself policy; it is part of a policy document, which makes it more advisory than prescriptive.  Second, COMMONALITY is written in the context of running text, with little indication that it applies strongly to article titles.  WP:COMMONNAME is the overriding guideline for article titles, and that metric is clearly in favor of the proposed rename.  Third, COMMONALITY does not require us to select a rarely-seen variant term just because the term was coined using an ambiguous or not-so-common word.  COMMONALITY is intended to inform our word choice where we have options available, not to override COMMONNAME in cases where the common term can be interpreted as ambiguous.  Powers T 13:20, 19 July 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.