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 integration 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 contains 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:NORW, 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 valiantly 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)