Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26653902-20160205015655

It was brought to my attention some time ago that Kaneki's article needs standardized usage and I strongly agree. As it is now, we have a huge inconsistency of Haise and Kaneki being used and it's making things look confusing. In addition, there are regularly people who write as though there is more than one Kaneki when that is purely fanon and not the case at all in canon.

The suggestion I was given on my wall was to change all instances of Haise or Sasaki to Kaneki after the Torso Investigation arc for consistency. Since there were scenes where Haise was taking to his mental projection of "Kaneki" however, we would also need to reword some things.

So here's what I'm thinking: First, put an Article Structure Section on top similar to the one Karren's page and state exactly where Haise and Kaneki should be used. From there, we will follow the structure and hopefully it should clear up any confusion about Kaneki's identity (which is unfortunately still an issue of confusion based on what I've seen in the fandom) in addition to allowing editors to keep things consistent in the future.

The challenge now is finding a way to use a singular name while still factoring in his denial of his past via a mental projection

The current options I have are as follows:

1) Make Kaneki the default name at all times except before the Torso reveal and when he is having an internal conversation with his unconscious projection (personally, I don't think this will flow well)

2) Make Kaneki the default name at all times except before the Torso reveal. Whenever he has an internal conversation, "Kaneki" is to be referred to as his "mental projection" or some variant of that.

3) Make Haise the default name for all of the :re sections. The mental projection will always be either the "mental projection" or (quotationed) "Kaneki". This includes the Post-Tsukiyama Operation since he's still going by Haise then.

If anyone has a different suggestion, please share it by all means. The only thing for sure is that we can't leave the article as it is now given how confusing it is with name usage and I swear if I have to correct any more implication/statement of "multiple personalities"...

So, please post away with your thoughts. The changes will be made once a consensus has been reached. 