Talk:Vicki Pallister

Last name????

Where does the last name Pallister come from? It's not mentioned in any of the televised episodes. 23skidoo 15:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK I found the information looking at the History (but it should have been mentioned in the article). I'm uncertain as to whether this article should have been moved, since the novels are of unclear canoncity. What happens if a later novel or Big Finish audio gives another name? 23skidoo 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The novels are as canon as the TV episodes.

As for another name (has there been one mentioned elsewhere?) If not we'll cross that bridge when we come it it. --Tangerineduel 15:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Vicki's last name has been used in audios as well as the books.

The rename tag does state Ace as an example, though Ace's name has had several inconsistencies throughout. Whilst Vicki's has been established. Much like Polly Wright and Melanie Bush - as the behind the scenes section states on this article. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:48, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. This wiki has already ruled on the issue of what counts as canon. Just because a TV episode has not established what her last name is, does not mean there's a contradiction, and so there's no reason to treat Pallister as anything other than her fully established last name. See Tardis:Canon policy--Trebligoniqua ☎ 05:44, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that "Vicki" is the name that appears in all media. "Vicki Pallister" is not. It's not accurate to say that "Vicki Pallister appeared in The Romans" because she didn't. "Vicki", on the other hand, did.

Also notable is the fact that there is no other known "Vicki" in the DWU. If you say "Vicki did so and so" or "Vicki went here and there" on this site there is a 99.99% probability that you are referring to this Vicki. Ace is the same way, basically "Ace McShane" was the only name ever given to Ace, there's no inconsistencies there, really. The issue is that there's only one "Ace" and that's Ace. Thus the page has that as the title rather than her full name. Mel and Polly are different, as there are obviously other people in the DWU with those names.

This page should be renamed "Vicki" and left that way, because it is the more used name of her, she is the only one with that name, and it is the all-around better choice. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 05:59, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should err on the side of pedantry. Are you saying Vicki Pallister is not the same character as Vicki? If not, then yes, Vicki Pallister did appear in "The Romans". Also, by that same viewpoint, "First Doctor", "Second Doctor", et. al. should not be used as article titles, as they were never used on TV.--Trebligoniqua ☎ 06:09, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the name "Vicki Palister" is not a name used in all media. You can't say "Vicki Pallister appeared in Prisoners of Time" because she was only ever called "Vicki" in that story. If she had been introduced as "Vicki Pallister" in the show that would be one thing, but she wasn't.

My main point obviously is that "Vicki" is the more commonly used name and thus should be used as the title. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 06:47, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

So then Ben Jackson didn't appear in "The Power of the Daleks" because he was only called "Ben" in it? I get what your point is, but I am trying to point out that it's ignoring common sense. Vicki is Vicki Pallister. Vicki Pallister appeared in every story that Vicki appeared in because that is her name; it goes with the policy of the wiki. There is no contradictory information. This argument only works if you are going with the idea that TV episodes are canon and everything else is apocrypha.--Trebligoniqua ☎ 07:04, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Vicki Pallister can be a redirect. It should also be used in the lead. But not in the title. --SOTO ☎ 06:50, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. Yes, her name is Vicki Pallister and Vicki Pallister appeared in her TV stories - but that's not what we know her by. Obviously, we'd call her Vicki Pallister front and centre in the lead, but page names are different. I think we should call the page Vicki and have her full name redirect. To put it in context, you don't add more info than needed in titles - we're hardly naming Amy Pond [[Amy Pond (The Eleventh Hour)]], now are we? Why? Simply because there's only been one Amy Pond!! Not to mention that 99% of Whovians are aware Vicki has a last name, there's only one "Vicki" - ours. --SOTO ☎ 07:10, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Please don't move my text. I was not responding to you, that's why I didn't put it under your response. OS25 keeps making the point Vicki Pallister didn't appear somewhere because she was only called Vicki in that story. So I was responding to that. I understand your point, but that's an argument that coming from the opposite direction. She may be the only "Vicki" for Whovians, but that's pushing it to a subjective level. Given that Vicki is not her full name or her common name, it should not be used in this encyclopaedic resource. Unless you are claiming that Vicki is along the lines of Cher or Madonna, then I think she should have a surname in the article's title.--Trebligoniqua ☎ 07:29, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

No, no I haven't. I've been asserting that it is innacurate to call a charactor something that she was not adressed in in that medium. If an Comic only calls Vicki "Vicki" then we shouldn't add her last name. And no, we're not claiming that Vicki is amoung the levels of "Cher or Madonna," we're suggesting that she's amoung the levels of "Ace".

I call upon T:CHAR NAMES to prove my point. T:CHAR NAMES states that "the titles of articles about individual characters should be the name by which the character was most commonly known in the Doctor Who universe". Vicki is more commonly known as just "Vicki" rather than her full name. Thus the page should just be called "Vicki". OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 07:44, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Note what it says about Amy:

The article named 'Amy Pond' should begin with

Amelia Jessica Pond, more commonly called Amy Pond...

This applies to here as well. We don't call her page "Amelia Jessica Pond," even though we know it's her name. We also don't call it "Amy Williams," even though it's the name used in the divorce papers and on her tombstone. Also note:

Similarly, although Katy Manning's character is credited as Jo Jones in TV: Death of the Doctor, she had many more appearances as Jo Grant, so that is what her article is titled.

The same applies here: she's called "Vicki Pallister" in selective media, which is why it gets a special mention in the lead, but she had many more appearances as simply "Vicki." She's "most often known," to quote the rule, as simply "Vicki." Case closed, the way I see it... --SOTO ☎ 07:59, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, end of discussion really. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 08:49, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

No, not end of discussion. This all boils down to pedantry, and hierarchy of media, which is not the policy of the wiki. Almost all regular characters are more commonly known by just their first names. As I said with the Ben example, Ben is rarely called "Ben Jackson". If you want to talk about Amy, she is usually called "Amy", or even "Pond", but rarely "Amy Pond". Heck, she is more commonly called "Amelia Pond" than "Amy Pond". By your logic, Ben's article should be "Ben" and Amy's article should be "Amy". Ultimately, the argument is that televised episodes don't establish it, so it's apocrypha, and should be additional information, not immediate information. The policy you cite does not mention or distinguish between media. When you start arguing that Ben's article should be called "Ben" then I will accept your argument as valid. It's hypocritical, with the only difference being that his last name was established on TV, and not a novel. --Trebligoniqua ☎ 13:25, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

{{rename}} removed. Do not re-emplace. The issue here is that there could well be more than one Vicki in the DWU — when both the behind-the-scenes and in-universe sides are considered. Vicki Pallister avoids the potential use of a dab term. Avoiding the use of a dab term with characters is of higher importance than the "most commonly known as" argument. The Vicki case is much more similar to the Susan case than the Amy Pond case. T:CHAR NAMES was written mostly to accommodate married characters. The controlling rule here is really T:ONE NAME#Future proofing.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:03: Sun 03 Mar 2013