Forum:Queen Victoria and other honourifics
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Opening post
Introduction
Recently, Forum:Relaxing T:HONOUR asked whether we should reform the character naming policy on this wiki. Over the course of the thread, a large number of poorly named pages were identified. The conclusion strongly reaffirmed the "Doc Holliday precedent", referring to my argument on Talk:Doc Holliday that sometimes an apparent honourific is actually part of a nickname and therefore belongs in the page title. Indeed, a stronger application of this principle has solved many longstanding issues, such as moving Brian (The Guide to the Dark Times) to Brian the Ood. However, there are many problematic cases that the Doc Holliday precedent doesn't solve.
A paradigmatic example is Queen Victoria. What should we call her page?
- Tardis:Honourifics says we can't call it "Queen Victoria", since "Queen" is a title or honorific which must be ommitted.
- Tardis:Disambiguation says we should instead disambiguate by debut story title, but Victoria (Imperial Moon) would imply that in some sense she's from the novel Imperial Moon, which is certainly not the case! Her appearance in Tooth and Claw was not an Imperial Moon reference, nor is she owned by Imperial Moon's author.
- The solution we've settled on is Victoria – treating her as a primary topic. However, there are many other Victorias arguably more notable for a Doctor Who wiki, and the result is that 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 Queen Victoria. The World History Encyclopedia's page is called Queen Victoria. Encyclopedia.org's entry is called Victoria, Queen (in the same way that Elvis' is 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". When
- there is a need to disambiguate a character page title, and
- the story title is insufficient as a dab term, either because it is unclear or actively misleading (see below), and
- primary topic status is not merited, and
- 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.
I believe these clauses are mostly self-explanatory, but let's explore some of them.
When the story title is insufficient as a dab term
What makes a story title insufficient as a dab term? 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!)
Sometimes, the story dab would be unhelpful. For instance, Sarah-Jane's Aunt Lavinia was mentioned on TV several times before she actually appeared. If that first appearance had been an obscure short story, it would have been very confusing to our readers if we called her page Lavinia (obscure short story). The Queen Victoria precedent would let us call her Aunt Lavinia instead. (Thankfully, we know her last name, so we're spared the headache!)
Sometimes, the story dab won't be unique. For instance, we meet Mrs Maitland in The Bells of Saint John, but we also meet other members of her family, so Maitland (The Bells of Saint John) would be ambiguous. Instead we call her Mrs Maitland, as T:HONOUR already prescribes:
As you can see, we have already practiced the "Queen Victoria precedent" against unhelpful dab terms for years. This proposal would merely extend existing practice to other examples of unehlpful dab terms as well.
When the character is always associated with a single title or honourific
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 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
I've intentionally avoided citing too many use cases lest we get bogged down in the details of individual title proposals. Whether any individual page title meets these criteria should be left for the relevant talk page(s); the purpose of this discussion is simply to set out a framework for those talk page discussions.
Let me close with another quote from the first lines of T:HONOUR:
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.
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. – n8 (☎) 19:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [edited 18:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)]
Discussion
I support this proposal. It will make page names much more intuitive, hopefully, and seems very sensible. Aquanafrahudy 📢 21:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 21:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I also Support this. Seems like it will make certain pages much easy to find for readers. Time God Eon ☎ 23:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes! Yes! Yes!. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 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. Najawin ☎ 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.Anastasia Cousins ☎ 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think Nate's 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. Danochy ☎ 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. Najawin ☎ 06:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, is it somewhat clearer? Sure. But it does literally start out with
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.) Najawin ☎ 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). – n8 (☎) 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. Najawin ☎ 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. Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Any further movement/refinement on this? 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… Chubby Potato ☎ 10:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
