We should not have
JBed says the grammar of the title doesn't matter, that we should follow the exact wording as used in the game when it comes to enemies eg: “The Undying” and not just “Undying” because the enemy's name, as it appears in the game, includes the article “the”.
This isn't a grammatical issue. Both “Undying” and “The Undying” are perfectly grammatical. This is more of a presentation-organisation issue. As far as I know, no encyclopedia, dictionary or any other kind of reference database includes any kind of article, definite or otherwise, as part of the titles of their entries. Simplicity, I think, is not an issue either, as it is arguably simpler to search for “Proudclad” instead of “The Proudclad”. Finally, the argument of there being a distinction between Lore entries and Gameplay entries is tangent to my proposal, because I'm not suggesting we put everything on the same category at all, but instead just adjust the page title to a more appropriate standard, in terms of an entry in our database.
My proposal is simple: The only instance in which we keep
While I do not have strong feelings about this, I would be more inclined to agree with Fae here. "Undying" is an article about a subject, like any other, and whether or not "The" is included in its display name is a small issue and not a strong part of the identity of the subject in particular. My only issues with removing "The" are a) consistency as we follow enemy display names religiously in other cases, and b) linking to enemy pages will be annoying as it makes sense to include the "The" in their display text whether we do in the article title or not.Definitely do this for lore pages, though.
In the naming policy we made a distinction between lore and gameplay. Because Cloud, Cloud Strife, Strife: when writing about the spiky-haired protagonist we can use any of its names.
When writing about the Cloud who equips the Materia that casts the spells in battle, we can only call him "Cloud", as his default gameplay name.
Take a look at Turks:Rude. When referring to said boss calling him anything other than "Turks:Rude" is wrong. That's not his name. Another example is Tonberries, he is the Tonberries enemy, even when referring to only one instance of it. And the same applies for enemies starting with "The". Saying "the Undying enemy" isn't correct, "the The Undying enemy" is.
Naturally when naming enemy articles, articles that are not at all about lore (because battle information is always given its own page), naturally we name them after the name of the enemy. Regardless of grammar and typos, we use that name exactly. This is its name. Like "The Lord of the Rings" has a "The" at the start, it's an important part of the book's name and the same applies to anything gameplay.
So the rules for naming gameplay things are name them directly after the term. So why make an exception to the word "The" when used at the start when it is still part of the enemy name? Do note: Even though the page title would be renamed, you'd still be referring to it by its gameplay name in the articles. So nothing changes. And the page name has no bearing on how we organise things anyway. JBed (talk) 19:10, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to make another comment here to respond to this: "As far as I know, no encyclopedia, dictionary or any other kind of reference database includes any kind of article, definite or otherwise, as part of the titles of their entries."