Talk:Sabbath (Movers)

Rename
There was a lot of discussion in Forum:Relaxing T:HONOUR about renaming this page, but ultimately the closing statement didn't explicitly weigh in either way. As I expressed in that thread, I have many concerns about the current name: Returning again to Scrooge's closing statement, it's clear to me that the Doc Holliday precedent applies here. Unlike in other cases where titles may change, in all our sources Sabbath is only ever a Godfather. For instance, in Movers – the very story which our current title presents as definitive regarding the character – the name "Sabbath" is preceded by "Godfather" every time it appears in dialogue. The same is true for A Hundred Words from a Civil War, which I believe to be the only mention of Sabbath outside of The Faction Paradox Protocols. "Godfather Sabbath" is simply the character's name, and it is confusing and inaccurate to leave either part out of the page's title. – n8 (☎) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Godfather Sabbath is first mentioned in The Eleven Day Empire and The Shadow Play. These were released before Movers, where he appears only in a flashback. Movers is simply not the story Godfather Sabbath is most associated with, and this makes it misleading to use it as a disambiguation term.
 * As Scrooge MacDuck notes in his closing statement, it's indeed true that when one types "Godfather Sabbath" into the search bar, they are redirected to this page without issue. However, when one types simply "Sabbath", the presented options are simply "Sabbath Dei" and "Sabbath (Movers)". This provides no clarity as to which is which; searchability remains an issue.
 * Compounding the above issue, despite Spongebob456's assurances, the top Tardis Wiki result for the search term  on Google remains Sabbath (Movers). (Tardis Wiki doesn't even show up when you search it in DuckDuckGo.)


 * Yeah I agree with the move. The decision that was made originally is plain and simply ridiculous. And it is even against policy given how Movers isn’t even their first story (it isn’t even a story they’re actually in). Danniesen ☎  16:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Doc Holiday precedent clearly doesn't apply - it's a contingent fact that we haven't seen Sabbath as a Father or a lesser rank. It's not part of his name. I agree that Spongebob's comments on this case in particular rather mistook what was under contention, but I'm not sure that the duckduckgo issue is itself determinative, since, well, if you search  Tardis Wiki is once again the top result. Najawin  ☎  16:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It's just as contingent a fact that we haven't seen Doc Holliday before he became a dentist. – n8 (☎) 16:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really, no. There's a further contingency, that Doc Holliday's profession became his nickname. This just hasn't happened for Sabbath? He's just always referred to with the relevant title. Let me ask you - do you think we should apply this standard to every Faction Paradox member who is always referred to with their title? Because I think the ruling in the thread was clearly against this, and I'm not sure how you're trying to argue that this is a Doc Holiday situation. Najawin ☎  17:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I obviously don't think we should apply this standard to every FP member – sorry, I thought my opening post was very clear on this, there were bullet points and everything! We should apply this standard in cases where disambiguation is necessary, if and when a talk page like this one determines that the story title is unhelpful for purposes of disambiguation, if and when the character is uniquely associated with a singular title. – n8 (☎) 17:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The bullet points don't clearly apply - the Doc Holiday precedent concerns whether it's the character's nickname, no? This would be making it all of these character's nicknames. And thus applicable regardless of the other standards. Najawin ☎  17:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm, fair enough. I suppose that means Queen Victoria is out of reach for now as well. In that case I move that we abridge until the conclusion of a thread more explicitly examining disambiguation-based T:HONOUR exemption. – n8 (☎) 17:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, Nate, but I think Najawin has the right of it, here. The Doc Holliday precedent refers to characters for whom their title becomes incorporated into an in-universe moniker (as is the case for Brian the Ood, Dr. Who, Mr. Bean, or Mr Saldaamir). We don't have any particular reason to think that's the case with Godfather Sabbath. He's not a "Dr Who", just a Doctor Chang — the title is iconically part of the character's designation IRL, but not in a way that has any weight in-universe.


 * All this being said, a perhaps-cursed possibility occurs to me: it seems the Movers dab term hinders more than it helps, so …couldn't he be a primary topic at Sabbath? The Serviceman is Sabbath Dei. The Godfather seems to be the only recurring character whose proper name is just Sabbath.


 * Some residual confusion will remain, but nothing can't solve, and frankly, that people might sometimes go very slightly cross-eyed with the two Sabbaths is precisely what Lawrence Miles intended. I can't find it in myself to think we're failing terribly if we reflect that a little (in a way that doesn't prevent people finding the right page if they put more than sixty seconds into their search).


 * If all else fails, some form of Sabbath vel-Paradox, Sabbath of House Paradox, or even Sabbath of Faction Paradox could be imaginable. I think there's some precedent for conjecturally assuming people's family names in dire cases. Not sure this is warranted here, but worth putting on the table. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The surname "Dei" has only ever been used twice: once in the cover booklet for an audio story, and once in a 2021 audio story which (as far as I know) the authors would prefer no one purchase! In every other source – eleven Doctor Who novels, two FP audios, and a comic – he is solely "Sabbath". So if anyone's to have primary topic status, it wouldn't be the Godfather. That said, your note about confusion is well taken 🤣 I'll be creating a thread shortly regarding a potential "Queen Victoria precedent" (or "Miss Young precedent"?) for bending T:HONOUR for the sake of disambiguation when specific conditions are met, and maybe after that, we can revisit things here. – n8 (☎) 17:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Was gonna say what n8 has. But also, whilst I do admittedly find the confusion amusing, I do seriously endorse it - quite the opposite. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  17:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)