Talk:Hugh Grant

Disambiguation

Okay, to avoid an edit war, I'm bringing the topic here. According to T:DAB#Why is it Castrovalva (TV story) and not Castrovalva (city)?, in-universe topics conventionally are left undabbed, and out-of-universe topics given a dab.

The precise way in which we choose to use dab terms has evolved over time on this wiki. From the beginning, though, the guiding principle has been:

Out-of-universe things get dab terms; in-universe things generally don't.

This means that if you have a choice between the city Castrovalva and the story Castrovalva, the city stays at Castrovalva and the story goes to Castrovalva (TV story). This notion was one of the first things decided by our founding editors, and it has gained widespread acceptance by our community. Note, though, that this is a very different organising principle to that which you'll find on other wikis, like Wikipedia. There, the notion is that relative popularity determines which page goes without a dab term. If we were set up like Wikipedia, Castrovalva would lead to the TV story, because it is by far the thing most people associate with the term "Castrovalva".

But our system isn't like that. We consistently choose to prioritise on the in-universe/out-of-universe metric, giving no weight at all to most linked to /least linked to, or most searched for/least searched for.T:DAB

So, as the policy states, the in-universe topics shouldn't be dabbed. Therefore, Tom Baker (Bafflement and Devotion) should be Tom Baker, and Tom Baker should be Tom Baker (actor). Scrooge MacDuck just wrote in his edit summary of this page that the in-universe page should be dabbed, due to T:BOUND, a rather contrary statement, as the in-universe pages having a dab is going against T:BOUND, not the opposite way around.

Epsilon 📯 📂

17:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

T:BOUND does not merely cover written policy, but also widespread practice that has been tacitly confirmed by the test of time and the evident knowledge of admins. The page about the real-life has sat at Tom Baker for over a decade, despite all my fellow Administrators knowing full well about T:DAB and about the existence of the "Tom Baker" page. Moreover, renaming this page would mean changing links across the Wiki, a monumental effort.

The Tom Baker rename may be a good idea. But there is a de-facto exception to T:DAB for prominent BTS people with a comparatively minor in-universe presence. Putting an end to that exception would be a matter for the Panopticon, because it would mean changing current practice for dozens of pages' names, with tens of thousands of links needing to be changed across the Wiki.

Until we do that', I contend that we should remain consistent about it, and keep actors who have played the Doctor undabbed in all cases. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to get a bot to take care of switching the links? I'm not sure, not having ever been an admin, so correct me if I'm incorrect, but it seems like the sort of thing it'd be possible to program a wiki bot to do. That said, I don't believe this switch would be ideal either, because nobody is ever going to type Tom Baker into the Doctor who wiki looking for the in-universe character. Although, then again, nor will anybody type Hide looking for animal skin, [[The Woman Who Lived]] looking for a thing on iPlayer in an obscure minisode, or a lot of the other places we enforce the "in-universe takes precedent" rule (although in fairnessboth those examples are TV stories, which are automatically dabbed anyway). So basically I can see the case both ways. Quite frankly if it were up to me I'd have either the rule the other way around or do what Wikipedia does with regards to prominence, but this wiki has decided otherwise and far be it from me to ever try and change that age-old policy. Quick question, though, would Episilon suggest taking this to the logical extreme and moving Doctor Who to Doctor Who (TV series) and Doctor Who (N-Space) to Doctor Who? And, for Scrooge, is the rule "prominent real world people with a comparatively minor in-universe presence" of "actors who have played the Doctor undabbed in all cases", because you say both and they aren't the same thing. Angus Villiers-Stuart is an example of somebody who has played the Doctor but isn't prominent, and Verity Lambert vice versa. Although I'll admit the issue's hardly likely to arise in the former. NightmareofEden ☎ 20:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In an ideal world, I would prefer the real world TV series to be dabbed, but I understand why that could never feasibly happen, but that's an exception, and I think it is reasonable to want the out-of-universe actor pages dabbed. Take Jennie Linden, for example, her in-universe dab is so long. It's Jennie Linden (Lady Penelope Investigates the stars of the Sensational new film Dr. Who and the Daleks!), and if we were to dab the out-of-universe page instead, it'd be Jennie Linden (actor), and Jennie Linden for the in-universe topic.

Epsilon 📯 📂

21:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@NightmareofEden: you ask "is the rule 'prominent real world people with a comparatively minor in-universe presence' or 'actors who have played the Doctor undabbed in all cases'". It's the former, except that I consider that an actor who has played the Doctor is by definition a "prominent" real-world personage as far as the history of Doctor Who is concerned. As you acknowledge, we're hardly likely to get an in-universe Angus Villiers-Stuart, but even if we did, I think the real chap should keep the undabbed page.

The thing is that all this talk of "prominence" is a devil to T:NPOV, which is why I suggest "has played an incarnation of the Doctor", or "has played a recurring companion", as a non-subjective criterion we can fall back on.

And anyway, this thing needn't be foolproof; I'm just codifying the common practice here, but it's clear we'll have a thread in the New Panopticon to try to hash things out more clearly anyway, so it's all rather transient. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"T:BOUND does not merely cover written policy, but also widespread practice that has been tacitly confirmed by the test of time and the evident knowledge of admins."

To be fair, isn't that itself an application of itself because it's not explicitly stated on T:BOUND? I'm being cheeky here, but it is something that annoyed me as a new user trying to learn the rules of the wiki. It was written in November of 2012, same time as T:WRITE POLICY, which explicitly says

Most rules are derived from one or more precedent forum discussions

Something that is deeply incompatible with the idea that merely longstanding and ignored practice is policy (as these things far outnumber forum discussed policies). I dunno, I don't really have a deep complaint here, I just think these rules are a little unclear and could use a little rewrite and felt this was a good time to voice my critique. Najawin ☎ 21:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

And I'd also like to say that this wasn't an agreed upon decision, nor was it tacitly decided by the community, it was essentially, in my case at least, laziness. Our lack of discussion on the matter does not mean it's been agreed upon. Hence why I'm discussing it right now.

For me, I couldn't be arsed to bug SOTO, who is currently the only active user with a working bot. But my laziness does not mean that I agree with what I've done, not unlike how I think N-Space is an inappropriate name for the DWU, but I still use it (though I will be bringing up its name in a discussion when the forums re-open).

Epsilon 📯 📂

22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Najawin: : I quite agree with you! But I also think it makes sense to have a policy that says "even if the current setup isn't codified by a specific policy, you shouldn't, on a whim, try and implement a change that would have ramifications on thousands of pages without starting a discussion". The policy other admins before me have cited to express this reasonable demand is T:BOUND, so I have, in this instance, followed their lead.

All of this is less than ideal, but whateryegonnado? I definitely think slapping a speedy-rename tag on Tom Baker, based on the letter of T:DAB and with no discussion, would be unadvisable. And until we have discussed what to do about Baker and the other "big" examples, I'd rather things stay consistent across the Wiki (albeit while being slightly incoherent with the letter of T:DAB) than have things become muddled and unreliable. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this isn't the first time out-of-universe pages have been dabbed, instead of their in-universe pages. Take Derek Connell and Derek Connell (writer) for example.

Epsilon 📯 📂

22:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Really this is just a continuation of the thesis "this wiki needs to sit down and have a serious discussion about how it treats the intersection of the real world series getting tangled up with things in-universe." Because right now I think that's causing us like somewhere between 25 and 50% of our headaches in some form or fashion. Najawin ☎ 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:CzechOut has expressed, multiple times, the idea that our main goal on this wiki (really any wiki) is to reach the 90% of people who come here but never edit. Some of the rules have exceptions when it makes, say, searchability easier. In this case, we would never dab the actor names for any of the main DWU actors because the inexperienced wiki user would have a problem searching for the information he needs and we don't want to scare people away from the wiki; we want to attract them here.

Just to point out a simple thing that often gets overlooked: pretty much every rule on this wiki has exceptions. Sometimes it takes a bit of searching to find the admin statements regarding such exceptions; in the past I've given links to back up what I say but now that the discussions are gone, that's not feasible; but take it from me (having edited here ten years and been an admin eight years) that it has never been intended to dab the major real world actor names. Shambala108 ☎ 23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aaah, thank you for chiming in! Knew I wasn't making that up.

Especially with your being this confident that this isn't going to change any time soon, I'm going to go ahead and include a note about this at T:DAB to prevent further confusion. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)