Forum:Queen Victoria and other honourifics: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Queen Victoria and other honourifics (edit)

Revision as of 18:27, 25 September 2023

6,761 bytes added , 25 September 2023

no edit summary

NateBumber

emailconfirmed, Administrators

15,041

edits

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 * The solution we've settled on is [[Victoria]] – treating her as a primary topic. However, there are [[Victoria (disambiguation)|many other Victorias]] arguably more notable for a ''Doctor Who'' wiki, and the result is that [[The Hollow Men (novel)|some pages]] currently link to [[Victoria]] thinking that it's about [[Victoria Waterfield]]!
-How have other wikis and encyclopedias handled this difficulty? Well, Wikipedia's page for her is called {{w|Queen Victoria}}. The World History Encyclopedia's page is called [https://www.worldhistory.org/Queen_Victoria/ Queen Victoria]. Encyclopedia.org's entry is called [https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/victoria-queen Victoria, Queen] (in the same way that Elvis' is [https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/literature-and-arts/music-popular-and-jazz-biographies/elvis-presley Presley, Elvis]). This should serve as a prompt for further thought: not because we should blindly copy other sites, but because when there's a common-sense solution which our rules are stopping us from using, that's a prompt for us to look at our rules more closely.
+How have other wikis and encyclopedias handled this difficulty? Well, Wikipedia's page for her is called {{w|Queen Victoria}}. The World History Encyclopedia's page is called [https://www.worldhistory.org/Queen_Victoria/ Queen Victoria]. Encyclopedia.org's entry is called [https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/victoria-queen Victoria, Queen] (in the same way that Elvis' is [https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/literature-and-arts/music-popular-and-jazz-biographies/elvis-presley Presley, Elvis]). This should serve as a prompt for further thought: not because we should blindly copy other sites, but because when there's a common-sense solution which our rules are stopping us from using, that suggests that we should look at those rules more closely.
 === Proposal ===
-My proposal is a "Queen Victoria precedent".
+My proposal is a "Queen Victoria precedent". When
-# When there is a need to disambiguate a character page title;
+# there is a need to disambiguate a character page title, '''''and'''''
-# When the story title is insufficient as a dab term, either because it is unclear or actively misleading (see below);
+# the story title is insufficient as a dab term, either because it is unclear or actively misleading (see below), '''''and'''''
-# When primary topic status is not merited; and
+# primary topic status is not merited, '''''and'''''
-# When the character is always associated with a single title or honourific, which would serve to disambiguate them from others
+# the character is always associated with a single title or honourific, which would suffice to disambiguate them from others
 – then we can add that title to their page title as a disambiguation term.
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ==== When the story title is insufficient as a dab term ====
-What makes a story title insufficient as a dab term? Ultimately, that's for a talk page to decide. But there are a few broad categories.
+<s>What makes a story title insufficient as a dab term?</s> Which story titles are insufficient as dab terms? Ultimately, that's for the talk pages to decide. But there are a few broad categories.
 Sometimes, the story dab would imply things that aren't true, like in the Queen Victoria example above. (She was not a character created by [[Christopher Bulis]] for ''[[Imperial Moon (novel)|Imperial Moon]]''!)
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 [[User:Scrooge MacDuck]] alluded to this in his closing statement in the last thread, and his example was [[Justine]]. In the vast majority of stories in which she appears, she is called "Cousin Justine". However, at times we also see her as "Little Sister Justine", (before she joins the Faction and abandons her surname) "Justine McManus", and (perhaps) "Mother Justine". There is no reason to privilege one era of her life over another in our coverage.
-However, in other cases, a character's title or honourific is the opposite of transitory: it's actively treated as a part of their name. A classic example often cited by [[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] is Miss Young, whom we cover on [[Young (The Sea Devil)]] despite the fact that she is never called "Young" but ''always'' "Miss Young", both in the covered stories and the ample secondary literature about her use and creation. If the other conditions are met, "Miss" should be included in the title for her character page.
+However, in other cases, a character's title or honourific is the opposite of transitory: it's actively treated as a part of their name. A classic example often cited by [[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] is Miss Young, whom we cover on [[Young (The Sea Devil)]] despite the fact that she is never called "Young" but ''always'' "Miss Young", both in the covered stories and the ample secondary literature about her use and creation. ''If'' the other conditions are met, "Miss" should be included in the title for her character page.
 === Conclusion ===
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 Let me close with another quote from the first lines of T:HONOUR:
 {{quote|Don't include Mr, Mrs, Dr, or any other honourific in a page title — '''unless''' it's genuinely a part of a character's name. […] These should generally not be included in article titles, '''unless''' they provide the only reasonable means of disambiguation.|(emphasis added)}}
-The actual wording of T:HONOUR has always left the door open for exceptions, but for too long we've treated it as a hard rule that can be applied blindly. Fixing [[Doc Holliday]] established a precedent that cleaned up dozens of pages in the process. Let's fix [[Victoria]] and establish another. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 19:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
+The actual wording of T:HONOUR has always left the door open for exceptions, but for too long we've treated it as a hard rule that can be applied blindly. Fixing [[Doc Holliday]] established a precedent that cleaned up dozens of pages in the process. Let's fix [[Victoria]] and establish another. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 19:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [edited 18:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)]
 == Discussion ==
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 : I'm not entirely sure about this. For example, [[John Andrews (Carnival of Monsters)]] and [[John Andrews (The Incherton Incident)]] seems a better way to disambiguate than [[Captain John Andrews]] and [[Lieutenant John Andrews]]. [[User:Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon|Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon]] [[User talk:Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
+:: I agree, story dabs work perfectly for those two pages. This proposal would only apply in cases where the story title of their first appearance is unclear or misleading as a dab term. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 21:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
+::: I agree with this proposal too. It seems a good fall-back when no other sensible disambiguation is available. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
+::: I also '''Support''' this. Seems like it will make certain pages much easy to find for readers. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::: {{yes}}{{yes}}{{yes}}. [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
+I'm skeptical but optimistic, the second condition seems too arbitrary in application. The rest seems fine. If that can be made more consistent I think this works. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
+:I am with Najawin in that the second is rather arbitrary and may lead to arguments, whilst the rest works rather well.[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
+:: I think Nate's [[#When the story title is insufficient as a dab term|expanded reasoning]] of that condition is a little clearer. The idea of a character not originating in their first story (Victoria) or having a non-unique name are pretty distinct. It's more the Aunt Lavinia example which could create debate. Perhaps if the condition were reworded to specify the ideas of non-originality and non-uniqueness, then it would be clearer? I think, whatever the case, making decisions on dab terms will always require some editor discretion. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::I mean, is it somewhat clearer? Sure. But it does literally start out with
+::::What makes a story title insufficient as a dab term? Ultimately, that's for a talk page to decide.
+:::Not really selling me on the idea that it's not arbitrary in application. (I note also that the "imply things that are untrue" category is quite broad in wording.) Again, I'm optimistic - I think this is a lot better than the last thread! But it needs to be slightly finer tuned, imo. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 06:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
+::::Do you disagree that talk pages are where rename proposals are decided? – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 14:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
+Did I suggest that? But saying "this process happens at this place" is different from saying "ultimately this standard comes down to what is decided by this process at this place". The latter is ''inherently affirming'' how things are arbitrary in application. (Again, I note, not arbitrary in terms of the standard itself, but in terms of how we apply it.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
+:Ahh, I see. As established elsewhere, your threshold for "arbitrary" and mine are different enough that they'd might as well be contradictory. But regardless, I've edited the OP to better reflect my intention in those sentences (leaving the original phrase in a redacted form so as to leave the motivation for your comments here clear). – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 18:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
+::As I expressed in the comment you originally responded to, it's not merely that sentence that's giving me pause. The entire thing just needs some tightening up, imo - clear criteria for what counts and what doesn't. As it stands it's written quite broadly. But I do understand that I'm, perhaps, an outlier on this. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::Personally, I find Nate's outlined proposal fairly clear, but if others struggle to understand perhaps the wording could be cleared up a little or something? idk. [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]]  20:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
+: Any further movement/refinement on this? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 10:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
+::Let it be said I've been meaning to write a reply to this when I can find the time, so this serves as a good reminder… [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
+::Scrooge, in your view, is further movement or refinement necessary? The consensus (save one self-acknowledged outlier) seems to be that the proposal is clear enough to be actionable. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 14:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
+:::I don't know if it's ''necessary'', but I do think there's ways the wording could be tightened/improved yet; I think Danochy was getting at something elegant with the "non-originality" talk, for example, rather than some what woolier way your current draft speaks of "for example, 'Victoria (Imperial Moon)' would imply Christopher Bullis invented her", which I think is something of an extreme example. Betruth, both the Victoria and Lavinia example seem like they could be tightened into a clearer standard than just "unclear or actively misleading": in both cases the logic seems to be that story dab-terms should if possible be avoided for ''characters whose debut is not the place the reader is expected to first encounter the idea of this character's existence'', or something of the kind (I'm sure it can be worded less clunkily). [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 14:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
+::::That's a great point. I'm also reminded of the "[[Hermit (The Time Monster)]]" discussion on [[Talk:Ansillon]], as well as example of [[Melody Pond (Prequel to The Impossible Astronaut)]], which [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] described (accurately, in my opinion) as an "awful unintuitive name"… Cases which could be addressed by a more carefully-worded proposal here. I'll pitch a more concrete wording here shortly. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 18:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)