Forum:Clarifying in-universe deadnaming policy in response to Rose Noble

So I am creating this forum in response to the latest episode of Doctor Who, TV: The Star Beast. In short, I think that we need to have a greater discussion about our in-universe deadnaming policy.

As far as I know, our wiki policy is that out-of-universe, we do not allow deadnames to be used on the pages of actors, crew members, etc. BUT we do allow redirects in cases where the person transitioned after they were credited for working on a DWU story, so people looking up names in the back of a book can find what they're looking for.

But our policy on in-universe pages is that, in our mission to archive and collect all in-universe information, we allow deadnames to be listed in the opening paragraph of a character's page, alongside redirects. This has been done specifically because we've seen many characters transition mid-narrative, such as Dorothy (The Wonderful Doctor of Oz).

However, I think we need to reconsider at least some cases, specifically the new situation of Rose Noble. As Rose is both canonically transgender and has her deadname stated in-narrative, there is naturally going to be a culture of some more... well, evil fans refusing to call her by anything but her dead name. Writing an article on a significant trans character and then having the second stated detail being her dead name could have very bad optics in my opinion.

So this is my thought: I think in cases like these, there is no need for the opening paragraphs to mention Rose's deadname. If people insist on having that information archived somewhere, you can place it in the start to the biography section. But others might think that we should simply not have deadnames on her article - it is worth debating. I also think there should be a redirect, because sadly people will see the phrase "J***n Noble" out there in the wild and will need to be able to search for the name out of context. However, use of this redirect within any articles should be absolutely banned, as this is a search-feature only redirect.

(Obviously, as Yasmin Finney was not credited for any DWU roles before transitioning, I think linking to or using *her* deadname should be considered vandalism. She does not need a redirect.)

I do understand how some would like to approach this in a case-by-case basis, but I certainly think that we need an official policy on this, and that said policy should discourage opening an article on a deadname or implying that a deadname defines a character more than anything else. OS25🤙☎️ 23:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
I think that, when the transition is in the backstory and not shown mid-story like with Rose Noble, there is no need for the name to be mentioned in the lead. However, I feel that it should be mentioned once at the start of the biography. However, this is at odds with w:c:community:Gender_Identity_Guidelines. As Rose transitions before the episode, we shouldn't use her deadname at all under that policy. However, I feel that this is a little unhelpful: RTD considers it important to accurately portray the abuse that transgender people may exprience and Rose's deadname also has some interesting meanings (see The Star Beast (TODWP episode)). Not mentioning the deadname anywhere seems like it runs counter to this. I will clarify with User:Spongebob456. I feel that a redirect should definetly be created for searchability. Bongo50  ☎  23:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's absurd to omit the name completely. At the end of the day, she's a fictional character and her deadname should be mentioned given that Russell T. Davies has chosen to include it in the episode, but I don't think it needs to be mentioned in her intro. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  00:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Should be documented. Shouldn't be in the intro. And there should probably be more robust changes to the rules than just this, imo. Epsilon was thinking of a few, iirc. Najawin ☎  01:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Another thing worth considering is whether Rose should be included in the disambiguation page for her deadname. I'm leaning towards yes in some form for the same reason we'd have a redirect. Bongo50   ☎  12:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the deadname should be omitted entirely. It is irrelevant, and given its context, it will make every trans user's heart sink when they get to the name, wherever it is. It is almost certainly the majority opinion within the trans community itself that deadnames are unacceptable on any wiki, please take that into consideration. User:Hasrock36 13:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "it will make every trans user's heart sink when they get to the name, wherever it is"


 * elaborate on this 103.247.152.236talk to me 13:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

exactly what Hasrock says. My heart certainly did sink with those parts (also trans). And with ref to “respecting RTD’s intent” the point is moot he is not trans


 * Yasmin Finney is trans though, and there are many other people on the production team who are trans. They would have agreed with this depiction. The whole point is to emphasise the abuse trans people face, plus it also forms a significant part of their character as an extension of the DoctorDonna. To ignore it would be a massive disservice in my opinion. 85.255.235.211talk to me 14:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Elaborating for103.247.152.236 as a trans woman myself seeing wikis and the like include deadnames feels like another stab in the heart, and a reminder that the world doesn't listen to us, or think that we belong. Its not just raw data, you have got to consider the impact on the affected community who will read this page.User:Hasrock36 15:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s in the episode itself, so you cannot expect people to just forget it exists. Every time you watch the episode you will be exposed to it. And I agree that it’s an important inclusion to show that this abuse exists. And Juno Dawson (herself a trans person) agrees with why RTD included it. Danniesen ☎  15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Reasons for and against inclusion in the episode itself are different to the reasons for and against including it on her wiki page User:Hasrock36 15:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Rose's birthname is a fact of her character and should be included in the article as a point of information, just like how someone's original surname would be included in articles where their name was changed through marriage. This should be a dry, apolitical and professionally written article. To leave it out entirely is silly. It doesn't need to be dwelled on, but a tactfully written point towards it is something that absolutely should be included. While Rose is a woman, she was named "Jason" by her parents at birth. That's a fact. This is a database of facts. It belongs. CaptainKaibyo ☎  16:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It should definitely not be included in the lede or infobox, but I do think mention it in the biography at the appropriate point is useful. We are here to reflect sources' content, not editorialise. But the concern about genuine psychological distress to some readers, albeit secondhand/in sympathy to an imaginary character, is a genuine one. This sort of links back to our discussions on trigger warnings and so on.


 * Again taking a page out of other online platforms' books (as I recently suggested we do with regards to editing windows at Forum:What does it mean for a story to be released in its entirety?), I wonder if we might not find a technical way to implement spoilered text, so that by default, a reader would see only "Rose was originally born under the deadname ■■■■■", but they'd be able to click it and see the name if they so desire. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How are new queer viewers of the show going to react when they look up her wiki page and see the most basic courtesy to trans people isn't followed here? Because in queer circles other sci fi wikis have decided to include deadnames and some people just refuse to even use that wiki, there are even private forks because its considered such a red flag. Keep the deadname in and lose the trust of many queer users. User:Hasrock36 17:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Something I'll note is the fact that Wikipedia even mentions deadnames for certain individuals, namely those who were known by it for years before transitioning like Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page. Rose Noble is obviously a fictional character so I think rules should be a bit relaxed here


 * Frankly though if we start omitting stuff due to "distress" then frankly this wiki has failed at its purpose. This is a database of info. There are many other articles on this wiki that could just as easily be argued to cause distress. There's also T:NOT SFW which can also be applied to this. 185.69.144.51talk to me 17:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Good points. Also… maybe unimportant, but in regards to Caitlyn Jenner, she has stated on Twitter, as a joketweet I guess, that she doesn’t care if she’s presented as Bruce Jenner either. Danniesen ☎  17:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Let me emphasize the point of Rose being fictional. We do not refer to trans people who actually exist with their deadnames. Mentioning the deadname of a fictional character is not something that is particularly similar in kind. As far as I see it, and others may, of course, correct me if I'm wrong, there are three reasons to avoid deadnaming someone on a page recounting facts about them.
 * Because the names simply never described them in the first place and it's an inaccurate reflection of who they were, so there's no reason they should be there.
 * To avoid triggering other trans/nb/gf/etc people who have experienced trauma related to being misgendered.
 * And as a broader political statement to simply normalize never ever mentioning deadnames.
 * I could be avoiding a few here, but these seem to be the obvious ones to me. In the case of Rose, the first concern just doesn't apply. We're not calling her by her deadname, we're saying people in the story used it. In the same sense if people in the story used particularly harsh insults that were relevant to the writer's intent, we'd include those on the character page as well, even if they don't actually reflect the character. The third is fair enough, but I'm not convinced it's something that has a place on this wiki. We can make an active choice to minimize doing so, and I support that, but I'm less than convinced that removing them entirely is something we should do. They're in the story for a reason. I'd get rid of a lot of parts of Doctor Who if I could. But it's still there.


 * And thus we come to reason number 2. And this is an understandable concern. It's one many of us share. It's also one that we can never ever find consensus on. See Forum:Temporary forums/Content warning templates. That thread ended in glorious failure. A lot of us absolutely understand that there's content on this wiki that's traumatic to segments of the fanbase and we wish that we could do more to balance that with also documenting things fully. But we just haven't found a way to do it yet. I'd love to find a way to do so. To both keep all of this information while making sure that users don't unintentionally run into things that are traumatic. If spoiler bars work, I'm down for that. If we need to reconsider content warnings, and more people from outside the community are willing to work with us this time to hammer them out, let's try that again. Najawin ☎  18:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The wiki can choose to ignore point 3 if it likes, but it can never again in good faith hold any pride event and claim to support the LGBTQ+ community. You question whether taking that stance has a place on the site, well inaction is itself an action, choosing to not take that stance is still taking a stance so please consider that also. User:Hasrock36 18:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s not how it works, sorry. Danniesen ☎  18:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I beg you to consider the points of view of trans people, to whom we should defer on this issue. Just because the information exists doesn't mean that republishing it is harmless.Aresef ☎  19:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(As a technical point to those joining us for the first time: always post your message at the end of the discussion. If you're replying to an older message, just quote the relevant bits in italics/quotation marks for clarity's sake, but don't post it earlier in the discussion thread. If you do that, it's easy for someone to miss your message altogether because they only check the bottom of the page for new posts. I've moved User:Aresef's message accordingly.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Based on Scrooge's suggestion from earlier, I've put together . Here's an example:
 * Some text in this sentence is and must be clicked to be viewed.
 * If we choose to go ahead with this idea, I need to clean up a few things before it's used in articles, namely improving accesibility (as this would currently play havock with screen readers which can be improved with a bit of work) and writing documentation. Bongo50   ☎  19:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to smooth the bars together? As it stands it suggests to me that someone just typed a bunch of square unicode characters for some reason, or something that failed to render properly.


 * I think we've all agreed that this information isn't harmless, and that we want to mitigate that harm as best we can without compromising accuracy. (Similar to how we minimized the "surface area" of our slurs by consolidating them on a select few pages where we could address them with the appropriate historical nuance.) The issue is that at least one user is suggesting we go further - make a political point that deadnames should never be mentioned regardless of context. And I think this point is just wrongheaded. Deadnames are not angels, they are not basilisks. They don't cause harm by merely existing. They cause harm through the context in which they're displayed, the people interacting with them, and the broader social context surrounding this interaction. They're not metaphysically toxic. They're just something that can cause real distress because of broader context. That's what we have to be aware of. Najawin ☎  20:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This wiki exists to collect and provide information on the Doctor Who universe and it was a decision made by Russell T. Davies to include Rose's deadname in the episode. Why would we choose to pretend that this wasn't the case by omitting the information? If somebody has a problem with Rose's deadname being revealed, then that's a problem that they have with Russell T. Davies and not with a wiki that records this information. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Would noting the deadname violate Fandom TOU on deadnaming? Even though Rose is a part of the whoniverse, I've seen some readings that the TOU extends into in-universe matters Editoronthewiki ☎  21:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin: I've made a change. Does it look better now?


 * Editoronthewiki: Fandom has a set of guidelines that apply specifically to in-universe characters. I'm clarifying this with User:Spongebob456. Bongo50   ☎  21:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks good now. Najawin ☎  21:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I strongly think using hidden text is setting a bad precedent. Not only does it look unprofessional for a wiki to see random hidden text in the middle of an article, but also what exactly do we judge to be potentially harmful that needs to go behind such a format? It's certainly not just limited to deadnaming. This wiki has tonnes of articles on real world things that could go under that category. 185.69.144.42talk to me 21:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually yes, fair point. How do we go about that? Danniesen ☎  21:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That's basically the same issue we ran into with content warnings. We can probably start with deadnames and maybe have a later thread on expanding it if we wish. Najawin ☎  21:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey so, I have nothing particularly of substance to add to the discussion, but I did want to make it known to everyone that Rose is far from being the only character this affects. Trans characters with established deadnames as part of their backstories include, but are not limited to Cleo Proctor and Eleanor Blake. WaltK ☎  21:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "it will make every trans user's heart sink when they get to the name, wherever it is"


 * who cares? why are they more special than everyone else? this wiki meticulously catalogues every other piece of information about the show.
 * "Frankly though if we start omitting stuff due to "distress" then frankly this wiki has failed at its purpose. This is a database of info. There are many other articles on this wiki that could just as easily be argued to cause distress. There's also T:NOT SFW which can also be applied to this."


 * who cares? why is this group so special the wiki needs to change for them? the world doesn't revolve around you. grow up.
 * "I beg you to consider the points of view of trans people, to whom we should defer on this issue. Just because the information exists doesn't mean that republishing it is harmless."


 * there's no harm in publishing trivia information about a fictional character. you're being dramatic. 146.70.193.79talk to me 01:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Would it be feasible to write words to the effect of: "in one scene, Rose is deadnamed by two characters as Donna comforts her and stands to her defence" (or however it's worded), with the actual deadname briefly mentioned in a footnote/endnote? That way, it's not in the body of the main article, and acts as 'extra information' right at the end, with real world clarification that RTD chose to include this scene deliberately, etc.? (Also, WaltK above me makes a good point.) — Fractal Doctor @  01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, I'd be down, but is that better than the spoiler text? Najawin ☎  01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Haven't contributed to this discussion up until now, but I think that this seems to be an issue with several people in the trans community, and deadnaming in the in-universe section of the article could cause people distress. We should, in my opinion, avoid this wherever possible. However, I think that if we confine it to the Behind the Scenes section, and provide the appropriate context (and we really need to do something about that content warning thread), this risk can be minimised. Ideally, we could put a content warning at the top of the BTS section, setting a precedent for other places in which this is desperately needed (looking especially at somewhere like Dodo Chaplet, the info on there has an incredibly high potential for being harmful to those who have had traumatic experiences), but note that I haven't actually read the original content warning thread, and this might be forbidden by T:BOUND, or there might be compelling arguments against this. But overall, I think the takeaway is that if something causes people distress, please can we try and minimise or eliminate that distress. With regards to spoiler-tagging the information, I think it would make more sense to spoiler-tag the incident of Rose being deadnamed, as well as potentially the deadname itself. But how do we provide adequate contact for the spoiler tag without saying what it actually is we're hiding? (I'm hopeful this would be a good precedent for use in other places, though, and thank heavens we have a way to say relevant spoilery things in non-spoilery threads without having to go REDACTED). Anyhow, sorry for the long reply, 08:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Just for future reference, these are the pages that contain trans characters' deadnames; WaltK ☎  08:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Eleanor Blake
 * Cassandra O'Brien.Δ17
 * Dorothy (The Wonderful Doctor of Oz)
 * Cleo Proctor
 * Sally Salter
 * Susan (A Town Called Mercy)
 * Vanessa (Greeks Bearing Gifts)

We absolutely should NOT add spoiler tags to a wiki. It looks incredibly unprofessional. In addition, adding it to "Behind the scenes" would be factually incorrect. It's not behind the scenes. It's literally on-screen, in-universe information


 * Well, in that case, perhaps we should exclude the info from the wiki completely. If information has the potential to hurt somebody, then it is best that we are very very careful with what we do with this information. I am not personally offended by this information, but there are others who are, so we must take that into account. 09:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * All information has the "potential" to hurt somebody. I agree we need to be careful with how this is presented, but we have already removed the information from her leading paragraph. That is taking into account how some people will be offended by this information. Many of the people who are not satisfied with that will likely not be satisfied with anything other than it's full removal, which would dissatisfy another subset of users.


 * And now we are back around. No we should not. We are a wiki of of facts. Facts don’t care about feelings. We are not excluding the info. Danniesen ☎  09:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * And yet we, as non-sociopathic individuals of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens, do, and ought. If there are people who find this information traumatic in any way, then we must take that into account. 09:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It has already been taken into account. For some, nothing but total censorship will ever be enough. We must also take into account that not everyone prioritizes the integrity of this wiki, which should be our first priority as a community.


 * Yes. Which is why we are trying to figure out how to do it best. We are not removing the information that is actively given in the episode, as a wiki of facts. If the deadname had not been given at all, the issue wouldn’t be there and there would be no inclusion. But as it is given, we do include it, however we deem it fit to also think of those it affects. But we do not exclude a fact that is given outright. Frankly, if what someone else above pointed out is true that Wikipedia completely omits facts like that, that is a failure of that site, being a site of facts. We include it, but we take into account others who have feelings about it. But we don’t ultimately exclude the info. And no matter what someone else might feel about that, it does not, in fact, make the wiki anti-Pride or anti-trans or whatever word might be hurled this way. Danniesen ☎  10:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The upset around Deadnaming sets a bad precedent for pretending the past didn't exist. By all means, we can all respectfully refer to people by their preferred names in the present. But let's not pretend it wasn't something else before. It is healthy to embrace and accept everything in life, including the past. It is how we learn from our mistakes as people. And to deny literal facts is delusional. To be able to say "I used to be X but now I'm Y" without getting upset is a sign of growth, acceptance and mental stability and maturity. You cannot expect society to accept you if you do not accept yourself and reality. Also, Doctor Who is a fictional show. Deadnaming, and one's journey to the acceptance of it, is a personal endeavour. To feel 'triggered' or 'traumatised' on behalf of someone else isn't fair to the subject of the deadnaming. It's also not fair to the wider population who have learned to accept deadnaming as described above. So to do so on behalf of a fictional character is redundant. As a society, we should be aware of peoples' feelings, which is why you may want to include a warning at the top of the page to simply state that deadnaming is mentioned on the page. However, it is not necessary, as wikis exist to portray facts, regardless of feelings. The fact is Rose used to be Jason. Jason was born male. And that's okay. Another important part of society is to not acknowledge those who cannot accept reality and try to shift society against facts.51.191.137.161talk to me 10:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well said. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Danniesen ☎  10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This is just the right balance between the points, and is somewhere in the region of where I was trying to get at. I don't think we should exclude the information, but a content warning would certainly be apt. 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * A few side points, both of which I've already brought up but that have been lost a bit in the discussion, that may benefit from some consideration:
 * should Rose Noble be listed at the disambiguation page for her deadname?
 * what about including the deadname on other pages where relevant? For example, I have included it at The Star Beast (TODWP episode) in order to convey a point Russell T Davies makes about the meaning behind the deadname. I'd be happy to remove this, but, in that case, I do think that there has to be somewhere else you can go to find out what the name is such that the fact is fully conveyed.
 * Bongo50  ☎  11:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that we have to discuss the name to some extent, we can't just assume it isn't out there. For instance, Rose's behind-the-scenes section should absolutely include Russell's note about her deadname. As per the DAB - I'm indifferent on the topic. OS25🤙☎️ 11:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it should absolutely be included on the podcast page. They openly talk about it there and the meaning behind it. Excluding it there would be a lack of information extending beyond the simple deadname itself. I don’t know about the disambiguation page tho. Danniesen ☎  11:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think 51.191 goes a bit far here, the first bit of their argument applies to the deadnames of real world persons, which are strictly verboten. So it proves too much. Similarly, I think the content warning + BTS proposal isn't T:BOUND/T:POINT per se, it's a more limited approach to the issue discussed before, but expanding it to something like Dodo's page absolutely is. Dodo was mentioned extensively in that thread. (And in this instance it's very much a T:POINT issue, not T:BOUND. There was just no resolution to that thread. The issue needs to be new arguments moving forward, not explicitly that we're bound by the past.) Najawin ☎  11:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)