Okay, this may be nitpicking, but since the character's real name is Frederick Steiner, that should be the article and "Anastasius Focht" should thus redirect to "Frederick Steiner", not the other way round as it is now. Since I don't know how to change the redirect, could one of the admins do it? Frabby 08:04, 10 January 2008 (CST)
- I'll disagree with you only to play devil's advocate. I don't have a particular opinion on this, but he was known as Anastasius Focht for longer than he was known as Frederick Steiner, did more in ComStar, and is more famous for what he did in ComStar. Even after WoB announced his identity, he continued to be known as Focht. If there is consensus to move to article, I'll happily do it, but I don't think it should be done without it. Anybody else want to chime in? --Scaletail 08:53, 10 January 2008 (CST)
- I agree with Scaletail -- I would redirect his Steiner name and keep the main stuff under Anastasius Focht. He's much more known under that name. Locis 10:59, 10 January 2008 (CST)
- I also think the name should stay. His significant actions were made when he was Focht. Someone searching for him on this wiki might not even be aware of his original name. Haruspex 02:36, 11 January 2008 (CST)
- From my Clanner point of view, I'd say the same thing : Anastasius Focht was a great man, and Frederick Steiner a name between many others...
- The fact remains that Anastasius Focht is just an adopted name of Frederik Steiner, not his true name. We have similar problems with "Gideon Braver" Vandenburg, Thomas Marik, Galen Cox and Katrina "Katarina" Steiner, and yet more people who were known under nicknames and adopted names such as the Bounty Hunter, the Black Widow, Gentleman Johnny, etc. - imho the only clean (and "correct") way to deal with names is to sort people by their true name (Clan naming being a totally different problem...). Even Darth Vader redirects to Anakin Skywalker on the SW wiki, not the other way round. Frabby 09:55, 5 February 2008 (CST)
- Interesting discussion. I tend to agree with Frabby that Frederick Steiner is who the man is and his alias/reborn name of Anastasius Focht is just that - an alias. If the concern is that there's not enough info on him as Frederick, we can certainly change that. Certainly the Vader/Anakin example is indicative of the same kind of transformation and, imo, a good example to follow. Bdevoe 13:55, 6 February 2008 (CST)
- Look at it this way. Which line do you think will come up more often in this article? "Focht did this" or "Frederick did this"? Anakin Skywalker, due to Episodes I up to III did a lot of important stuff. He was someone important as Anakin. I mean, Superman doesn't redirect to Kal-El or Clark Kent on Wikipedia does it? Haruspex 07:47, 7 February 2008 (CST)
- By that rationale, the false Thomas Marik would have to get the "Thomas Marik" article and the real Thomas Marik would have to be entered into the Category:People as "Master, The", or some other weird conjecture. Treating adopted names as "true" names causes all sorts of problems and is in no way better than redirects; conversely, cataloguing people by their true name and redirecting from their adopted/honorary/clan/pet/whatever names is clean, simple, foolproof and causes no problem whatsoever. With redirects in place, Focht will easily be identified with Steiner and can be linked using either name. The question here is not what his best known name was, but rather what is correct/true/birth name was. Frabby 08:08, 7 February 2008 (CST)
- So Superman doesn't count. Or Sean Connery, Michael J. Fox, or many people in the entertainment business for that matter (check Wikipedia). In the unlikely event that two people have the same name, they set up a disambiguiation (sp?). Wikipedia is a valid precedent, and for real people no less. Haruspex 09:05, 7 February 2008 (CST)
- Same thing with Seven of Nine on Wikipedia. Annika Hansen redirects to the Seven of Nine page. Haruspex 09:09, 7 February 2008 (CST)
- Well, the play devil's advocate to my own position, I found this on Wiki.
General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:
Thought : I know that the Frederick's suicide mission with the 10th Lyran Guards was politically motivated, as Katrina Steiner had uncovered a plot against her and was essentially giving him a shot at redemption (at best) or to die with honor (at worst). I do not, however, have the references to this, and I didn't want to add it without. Anyone have any ideas? ClanWolverine101
- Well, I got the book, but no page number... kosher? ClanWolverine101
The page states: "It was he who named the Timber Wolf "Mad Cat" after he studied the battle footage of Phelan's encounter with Clan Wolf. He also pointed out that it would be impossible for ComStar to replicate the 'Mech when Myndo Waterly suggested that their armorers modify their Catapults to that configuration."
Where was this found? This is completely false. The Mad Cat designation was first mentioned in one of the Blood of Kerensky trilogy books, I believe it was "created" by Phelan's targeting computer, unable to pick a known 'mech designation. The Timberwolf had the arms/PPCs of a Marauder (the Mad) and the missile pods of a Catapult (the Cat). It chose this designation to represent the previously unknown 'mech. -Unsigned 188.8.131.52.
- (Who posted the above?) This is an old argument. Novels/illustrations describe the primary variant of the Timber Wolf with a PPC in each arm and LRM15 racks on the shoulders. Then the TRO came out, and this wasn't the case. With respect, however, to the novel, this IS accurate. The name did NOT come from Phaelan's computer, unless they radically changed things when the reprinted Lethal Heritage. Absolutely 100% Anastasius came up with the name "Mad Cat". ClanWolverine101 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Umm except for the first image on the page, old Fred has a patch on his right eye. In the first image it is on his left. I am not pretending to know which is correct, but maybe someone can flip the wrong one/s?— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 21 January 2012.
- Good catch, 220.127.116.11. However, we here at BTW are not allowed to 'correct' original material. If the picture was flipped by the editor who provided it, that would be one thing, but in this case the original source materials (the Era Reports) presented the graphics the same way we do here. However, if you can find me a public statement by the powers at CGL indicating it was a mistake, we can label the picture appropriately. Contact me on my talk page or make the addition yourself. Thanks! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:30, 22 January 2012 (PST)