Talk:Albie Sinclair

Nicknames

Do we have a ruling for how nicknames should be integrated into the first line of the introduction? This page now has the first option, but previously had the second:

1. Albert Sinclair, also known as "Albie" for short
2. Albert "Albie" Sinclair

The prevailing format across the wiki seems to be #2 (see Ben Jackson, Liz Shaw, Jo Grant, Harry Sullivan, Peri Brown, Flip Jackson, Melanie Bush, Hex, Will Arrowsmith, Charlotte Pollard, Toshiko Sato, Amy Pond, Yasmin Khan, etc.), but T:CHAR NAMES indicates that #1 (see Mels Zucker, Charles Griffiths or Pete Tyler, all of which were changed relatively recently from #2 by Epsilon) is the ideal way.

Epsilon's edit summary for changing it on Charles Griffiths' page said that it was because "Charlie isn't a nickname, it's just a shorthand of Charles" and, on this page, that it should be #1 because Albie is a hypocorism and not a nickname. However, the above examples show that we don't make any distinction between the two.

To go on a tangent, if we look up the definition of a hypocorism, we get:

• Collins Dictionary - "a pet name, esp one using a diminutive affix"
  • Definition of pet name: "A pet name is a special name that you use for a close friend or a member of your family instead of using their real name. Synonyms: nickname, term of endearment, affectionate name"
  • Definition of nickname: "A nickname is an informal name for someone or something"
• Merriam-Webster - "a pet name"
  • Definition of pet name: "a name that a person uses for someone to show love or affection"
  • Definition of nickname: "a familiar form of a proper name (as of a person or a city)"

Let's consider better known examples than Albie. With Elizabeth Shaw, "Liz" isn't just a pet name (i.e. not a "special name" or one used "to show love or affection") because it's the name she uses to introduce herself to people and uses even in a professional context. Jo and Amy similarly introduce themselves as "Jo Grant" and "Amy Pond". It wouldn't be accurate, I don't think, to [edit: say "Amelia Pond, known as Amy for brevity" when she isn't known by that name just to save time.]

Even if we ignore all this, #2 is clearly the more widespread. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to changing it, but as far as I can see, this is the way that we include such names here and, short of a discussion about it when we get the forums back and unless there's been a discussion that I'm unaware of and hasn't been implemented, the introduction to this page should return to reading Albert "Albie" Sinclair. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 15:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If there is a policy about something that tells us to do something explicitly in a certain way, especially when it makes sense, we should follow it instead of going around and using hypocoristics as nicknames. They're just not, and even if on a bunch of pages they're treated as such... that's an error! I don't think it'd be proper if we started using WC as a prefix for The Night of the Doctor and when someone points out that it's not a webcast and there is even a policy to support this argument, for the opposing party to got "well a bunch of pages use it so we should continue to do so". That's what T:BOUND forbades. So, in light of T:CHAR NAMES and T:BOUND, all the pages should be switched to option #2. If you feel that T:CHAR NAMES is wrong and should be changed, feel free to open a Forum discussion.

Also, when I mentioned hypocoristic names, I was just referring to Albie; diminutives cover things like Liz, Jo, and Amy, and diminutives are related hypocoristics.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Now, I think it would be good if T:CHAR NAMES is slightly rewritten to talk about diminutives and hypocoristics, and perhaps give other examples of how character names in leads could be written: so, "Elizabeth Haggard, who indentified herself commonly as Liz (née Shaw)" or something, that could be beneficial.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Like I've said, I'm not necessarily opposed to that, although that example does seem a bit unwieldy. I used that same format on a wiki I created and have long since lost interest in. But if a practice is widespread and unchallenged by the admins, surely that indicates that the policy page is out of date. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 16:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Not quite: for that to work, it needs to be the whole community doing something widespread and in agreement of. But that's not quite the case, considering this talk page.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)