Talk:Chris Cwej
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Split
I think that this page should be split as seems to be the new precedent for characters with discernible regenerations. I would suggest the names either Chris Cwej I/Cwej I to cover all the material from the VNA - and the BF stories - up to his regeneration in Tears of the Oracle, Chris Cwej II/Cwej II to cover the remaining VNA novels, Chris Cwej III/Cwej III to cover additional appearances made by that incarnation and finally Cwej-V to cover the appearances from the solo Cwej series. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 09:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I believe incarnation names are actually given in Down the Middle. If we go forward with such a split, we should, I think, use those. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you shared them? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 10:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I think they're the ones currently being used as section headers! (Which is why they follow an intentionally irregular naming convention.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Which part of Down the Middle do these appear? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 10:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I think they're the ones currently being used as section headers! (Which is why they follow an intentionally irregular naming convention.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you shared them? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 10:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I believe it would be needlessly user-hostile to make readers go to "First Shvey" to read about the character's actions in the Virgin New Adventures where he is universally and exclusively called "Chris Cwej". Despite this, I agree that the pages should be split. This seems like a great candidate for the format I suggested at Talk:I.M. Foreman#Naming: Chris Cwej as an article which is an overview page for a character and his incarnations as well as the page for the character's first incarnation. Such an amalgamation may scrape against our neurotic editorial sensibilities, but there's no real obstacle to this approach, and it would certainly be the most user-friendly way to cover this complicated character. – n8 (☎) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)