Talk:Hatbox

Duplicate page
Shouldn't this be merged with the already existing hat box page? Rollface in 3d spac (GarfielfStuff) ☎  18:19, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * For context, this person is taking about Hat box, and I agree. I don’t see this as really controversial, the creation of two pages for the exact same topic must surely have been a simple error all along? NightmareofEden ☎  18:23, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * Technically we're not told that the "hatbox" actually was ever used to contain hats, so, uh T:NO RW applies. Also, instead of making a post on a talk page just asking for someone else to do something add a merge tag in the future, you've done similar things in the past. Najawin ☎  18:27, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * As a matter of common sense, I think they should be merged. -- Saxon (✉️) 18:30, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is an unfairly strict interpretation of the rule. Are we to believe that a hatbox is a totally different thing to a hat box, and only one of the two is a box for the purpose of containing hats? Especially as the latter isn’t even listed as appearing in a prose medium where spelling would be an issue. Unless this is supposed to a be a page for that one specific hatbox, in which case it should be disambiged if it even gets a page at all. NightmareofEden ☎  18:33, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

If this gets merged, Blue-ray and Blu-ray should also be merged. Epsilon  📯 📂 18:36, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean, the rule as it stands is unfairly strict imo, but I guess the issue depends on whether we think Four/Leela pronounce a space between "Hat" and "Box" because Donna didn't say the word. Though the first sentence of the other article is definitely in violation of T:NO RW. Najawin ☎  18:39, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that it’s a different case because “blue-Ray” is an outright parody of “blu-Ray”, which also exists in the DWU as a brand. It’s more equivalent to Bookface vs Facebook. This is a simple variant spelling of a real-world generic item, rather than a DWU-original parody of a real-world brand. NightmareofEden ☎  18:41, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * I think hatbox/hat box is pretty self explanatory, ergo, I don't think it's a T:NO RW violation. Also, the spelling "blu-ray" has come from an audio drama, so that is technically a violation of T:NO RW. Epsilon  📯 📂 18:43, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I also must point out that, whilst I’m on mobile so can’t provide a direct link to a Google search page, googling

site:tardis.fandom.com "also spelt" OR "also spelled" OR "sometimes spelt" OR "sometimes spelled"

will provide plenty of precedent for this. Or should we also have separate pages for Dalekenium and Dalekanium; Clom, Klom, and Cloume; Mary Celeste and Marie Celeste; Donut and Doughnut; etc.? NightmareofEden ☎  18:50, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * In those instances we know those are the same things and there are alternative spellings for stories about the same objects. Here we have "oh, there' an object the Corsair kept a void in". Not analogous. Najawin ☎  19:01, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * How is it not analogous? Why do we “know” in that case but not this one? And what about Tinker Bell vs Tinkerbell? That seems pretty directly analogous; mentioned twice, never seen, the issue is whether to put the space between words, and is a real world thing (well, Tinker Bell isn’t a real world thing, but you know what I mean) with this variant spelling in the real world as well as the DWU. NightmareofEden ☎  19:10, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that Tinker Bell is analogous (and likely should be edited). The others are decidedly not, as there are actual stories about the same object, we know it's the same object, and different spellings are used. Najawin ☎  19:12, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * Speaking of, that page should be Tinkerbell, seeing as Tinker Bell is technically conjecture. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:15, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting you raise that point, since that’s something that makes it more analogous to this case! Again, look at hat box. There are no prose examples. Precisely zero. We’re “hearing” the space there. As for the other post, if we’re using T:NO RW, how do we know that the Mary and Marie Celeste aren’t two different ships with similar names that both went missing for different reasons? That Clom, Klom, and Cloume aren’t different planets? That donuts and doughnuts aren’t distinct but similar-looking baked confectionaries? That Daleks aren’t “according to one account” made of Dalekanium but “according to another account” made out of a totally different metal? Or even that both metals don’t co-exist and aren’t variantly used by the Daleks? If we follow the rule of only using in-universe information to its very strictest logical conclusion, this IS what we’re left with. NightmareofEden  ☎  19:21, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

Basically, it looks like another reason to open a thread about the application of T:NO RW when the forums reopen. Its original purpose makes perfect sense. No real world information about things, like the biography of William Shakespeare, for example. Recently the rule has been taken to meticulous extremes. It needs to be slackened. Doctor Who isn't supposed to be contextless. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:26, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * I never said that I like T:NO RW. But the examples you're giving are far stricter than what we're discussing here. We literally have no evidence of anything connecting hatbox and Hat box aside from the name, unlike the others. So I don't have to be applying The Strictest Possible Interpretation Of T:NO RW to say you can't do this, while you do have to do so to say you can't combine Clom and Klom. Najawin ☎  19:28, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

Ooooh! And, a hat box actually APPEARS in Partners in Crime. While I haven’t read the comic hatbox without a space refers to, it looks like this one only mentions it, and doesn’t actually show it. And all the other appearances of hat box with a space that AREN’T Partners in Crime are only mentions too. And, a major point being made in this thread was that we don’t know that a hatbox without a space actually is, in-universe, a box that contains hats. My question is, going by all that, how do we know that a hat box with a space IS the one that’s actually a box that contains hats. That is to say, even if we do accept “the audible space” for Talons and Tales, and that the two items are distinct things, and that one of the two can’t even be confirmed as a box for hats, how do we know whether the thing Donna presented to the Doctor in Partners in Crime was a hat box or a hatbox? NightmareofEden ☎  19:29, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * Sigh. How does something as incontrovertible as the difference between hatbox and hat box spawn this much discussion? Of course they're the same bloomin' thing. It would be absurd to say otherwise. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:33, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I thought Partners didn't actually mention the word, guess it does. Closed Captions on Amazon has no space, not sure if that's an official transcript though, so if someone can check their DVD that should solve it. Najawin ☎  19:38, November 16, 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC iPlayer also has no space on its subtitles. --Borisashton ☎  19:40, November 16, 2020 (UTC)
 * That's probably sufficient, though we still should change the first sentence of the other article and make some modifications to articles like Tinker Bell. Najawin ☎  19:44, November 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * DVDs sometimes do mistranscribe lines. I believe a DWM issue had a (rather funny) list of such mistakes, can’t recall which one or any examples off the top of my head though. iPlayer subtitles might be a bit more reliable, due to the more direct connection to the BBC, but unfortunately Talons ain’t on there. Additionally, if it does turn out that, say, it’s a hatbox in Partners but a hat box in Talons, and we don’t merge the pages, surely that should mean that a) we move the Partners example to this page and b) we now can confidently state that a hatbox is indeed a box one puts hats into, and it’s not hat box we can’t say that of with respect to T:NO RW? All that does is switch our problem to the other end! It’s gonna get very silly very quickly if we have to check every single time if every reference to/appearance of a hat-box in Doctor Who is a hatbox or a hat box. NightmareofEden ☎  19:48, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

I did say "probably" for a reason. You can argue still that there's only enough to move the example, but I think as a piece of luggage there's now enough to connect the two pages. Could go either way. Najawin ☎  19:50, November 16, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, may I vent for a second? Aaaaaah. I saw the merge tag on this page just two hours ago on my regular patrol of WikiActivity but, being somewhat busy, thought, eh, I'll effect this later in the day. Now this happens.


 * Guys, I appreciate the reluctant-sticking-to-the-word-f-T:NORW from the bottom of my heart, but even without the (welcome) evidence from the iPlayer subtitles, I think this is so clear a case of common sense that we absolutely should merge the page. (But the merged page should probably be at Hatbox, if that's the spelling used by subtitles.)


 * The thing is that if we start splitting hairs to this extent, how are we to know that, say, when Clara mentions she's going to buy coffee, she's talking about coffee rather than some new, not-existing-in-the-real-world beverage called kow-fee? Because we are not space aliens, that is how.


 * There is some discussion at the moment, justifying a thread, of the outer boundaries T:NO RW when it comes to things like "DWM" in WC: The Zygon Isolation. But whether a "hat box" is the same thing as a "hatbox", or whether we can put an item-which-we-know-is-a-hatbox-but-isn't-named-as-such on the same page as a hatbox-which-is-named-as-such-but-whose-function-is-not-explained… this is firmly within the agreed-upon "Blender" exception to T:NO RW as to not even warrant much of a decision. This is just current practicel, folks.


 * Again though, do not interpret the mild frustrating in evidence above as an condemnation of this discussion. That such a minute issue of policy could generate so much healthy good-faith discussion in so little a time is a very encouraging sign of the quality of our current regular editors, and I commend it! Let's all just try to funnel that energy to more productive areas than this talk page from now on, because that merge is going forward as a matter of course. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:53, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

I’m gonna be honest here, this was one of the most pedantic debates I’ve seen on... well, just one of the most pedantic debates I’ve seen, really. But I’m glad that Scrooge was able to resolve it so quickly and sensibly. Thanks! NightmareofEden ☎  20:00, November 16, 2020 (UTC)