Talk:Tecteun (Once, Upon Time)

Why does Tecteun have multiple pages?
Why there are three articles for a minor character like Tecteun, but a main character like the Master has a huge and - sorry - confusing article? I do not understand that. Why can't the information on the three incarnations of Tecteun in one article? (it would of course be better to finally split up the Master article ;-) Scott Eccles ☎  14:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If I had fifty pence for every time someone has asked about why the Master page hasn't been split, I would genuinely have ten to twenty quid.


 * The simple reason that the Master hasn't been split is because it was ruled, a long time ago in the now defunct Forums, that the Master's incarnations would remain on one page, as at the time, only basic information was on the page and it wasn't worth splitting.


 * Since then, it has become one of the longest pages on the Wiki, far surpassing the recommended length for a page, and each incarnation has lots of information.


 * So of course, this page realistically will need to be split. However, we cannot do that until the Forums return, as one of our policies states that a Forum ruling can only be overturned in a Forum thread. :/


 * So it's all a matter of time, really. When the Forums are eventually brought back, I think that this may be one of the first threads to be opened, and I know that a lot of users have drafted up individual pages for incarnations, s othe split wwould be enacted quickly and cleanly.  📯 📂 15:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the enlightening answer. Scott Eccles ☎  17:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reasoning was more that there was no way of naming the Master's various incarnations. Overturning this would require a forum thread. 02:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There most certainly are names we could use for the Master's individual incarnations. For some, a name based on their body's origin would work (ie "The Bruce Master", "The Tremas Master"). For others, individual titles they've used (ie "The War Master", "Missy", "The Spy Master"). Simm's Master could be filed under "The Saxon Master". Failing that, they could all be filed under their episode of origin (ie "The Master (Terror of the Autons)", "The Master (Deep Breath)", "The Master (Spyfall)").Caroniver413 ☎  02:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Rename proposal
Where did the name "Awsok Tecteun" come from? I understand why we don't want to just call her Awsok, since that name is credits-exclusive and, unlike Solpado, the character identifies herself on-screen by another name (Tecteun). But the present title is a weird way of incorporating an alias into a name (given that "Tecteun" isn't a title, it just looks like a first and last name), and it creates a suboptimal situation where manual piping will be required everywhere it's used, since there's no character called "Awsok Tecteun", just one or the other. Tecteun (Flux) would fix all of these issues. Does anyone have a better counterproposal? – n8 (☎) 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good for SEO, since anyone searching for this specific incarnation will undoubtedly search "Flux Tecteun" rather than digging through the credits to find "Awsok".
 * There's plenty of precedent for using multi-part series titles as dab terms, like Operative (Children of Earth) and The Cold (Interference).
 * It also enables the pipe trick, and "Awsok" would remain as a redirect.


 * I agree on that point, I personally feel that the current name is rather clunky, and doesn't feel very fitting, as she's either credited "Awsok" or "Tecteun", but never "Awsok Tecteun", and going by how she refers to herself in-universe, I feel the name proposed by Nate makes more sense, especially with a redirect for Awsok. Liria10 ☎  21:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, hold the horses, we absolutely cannot dab Tecteun (Flux). It's "Awsok" Tecteun or it's Tecteun (Once, Upon Time) — but Flux is not a story, it is a series. We can't dab "(Flux)" any more than we dab anything by "(Torchwood)" or "(The Trial of a Time Lord)" or "(EDAs)".


 * Note that the intent of the name is that whenever it is used, it should be piped as "the "Awsok" Tecteun", similar to the current practice for the less official nicknames for Master incarnations like "". I know this retains the same issues of needing to be piped every time, I just wanted to clarify. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 02:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tecteun (Once, Upon Time) does seem sensible. (And Tecteun (Flux) is certainly not an option.)


 * Awsok Tecteun is a bit of a strange construction, I agree. It may work for the Master, but they aren't "the Tecteun", so the "Awsok" Tecteun doesn't seem entirely appropriate. Awsok (Once, Upon Time) is technically an option (and should be a redirect), but this is a case of an alias the character doesn't even use. Since she self-identifies as Tecteun, that should be the name of her page, too.


 * Disambiguating by story is also the more common convention. And it's not as if we renamed The Doctor (Fugitive of the Judoon) the Fugitive Doctor without deciding that means "Fugitive" Doctor (with quotation marks) goes out the window. If we decide on a title, it should be something we can stand by. 02:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 02:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect this pushback on the (Flux) dab term. It's nothing like "(Torchwood)" or "(EDAs)", since those are the titles of a show and a book series, respectively, whereas Flux is described in official sources as the title of a single multi-part story. (I'm not suggesting (Doctor Who), after all.) I also explicitly cited decade-old precedent in the forms of Operative (Children of Earth) and The Cold (Interference). I can cite more! Now Brian Blessed; now Category:Incarnations of the Gallifreyan (Interference); now Paramedic and Orphan! On Williams; on Sasha; on lorry driver and ... dare I say ... Zephon ( Day of Armageddon The Daleks' Master Plan)? If it's held that all this precedent is wrong and we must type out Operative (Children of Earth: Day One) forever, our inconsistent treatment of multi-part stories will join my list of things to revisit once the forums reopen.


 * Until then, Tecteun (Once, Upon Time) seems like an eminently reasonable compromise. – n8 (☎) 17:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that this precedent is wrong/ignored, as such — just that the Wiki's current position is that Series 13 (Doctor Who) is no more a multi-part story than Series 12 was, and the subtitle Flux is just a marketing gimmick. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There are exceptions to pretty much every rule on this wiki, even the ones you might think wouldn't have any exceptions. No rule can cover every situation, so we just muddle through as best we can. There usually isn't a forum thread required every time something like this comes up. Shambala108 ☎  02:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Just throwing in my support for Tecteun (Once, Upon Time), although I might have supported Awsok instead if that name was used onscreen rather than just being in the credits. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  14:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (I don't think the wiki is being so bold as to discount claims that series 13 was one serial. Instead, we're following the precedent set by previous multi-parters in BBC Wales Doctor Who, which is that if it's given its own name, it gets its own page. This was further corroborated by Torchwood: Children of Earth and Torchwood: Miracle Day, which follow a similar format to Flux.


 * Yes, each episode of Flux is its own distinct narrative as well, which isn't seen in our Torchwood examples. But we're not ones to contradict all the marketing. In any case, there are far more recurring characters and ongoing subplots involving them than in any other modern series of Doctor Who, and even War of the Sontarans is far more intwined with every other episode than, say, The Fires of Pompeii, which still played into the finale. Bel is like John Frobisher, not Sylvia Noble, attached to our main characters. Tangent, but good to clarify.)


 * In this case, I believe (Once, Upon Time) is the correct dab term, by precedent. We should probably discuss (Children of Earth) in the Tardis talk:Temporary forums once they're up and running. 05:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Having read the rationale behind not using (Flux) as a dab term, I do agree that (Once, Upon Time) would be correct dab term in that case, and I am also in support of renaming this page. (Though I would personally also welcome a discussion surrounding (Children of Earth) and yes even maybe using (Flux) once the forums are up and running)Liria10 ☎  07:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that, since we know pretty definitively that this incarnation was the final incarnation of Tecteun chronologically, Final Tecteun or Last Tecteun would also be an option, and one which would allow us to more handily point out this specific incarnation within an article, in a way a mere dabbed "Tecteun" does not. Just a thought. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Final" or "Last" as a descriptor is fairly useless, considering the distinct possibility she faked her death and could come back later, possibly in a new form. Obviously we can't use "3", since we have no idea how many Regenerations she's been through. I agree that "(Once, Upon Time)" or "(Flux)" would be best. Caroniver413 ☎  02:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we have unanimous agreement on Tecteun (Once, Upon Time) being the correct name for this page, so I've changed the redirect to speedy. Since I'm not an admin who can officially conclude the discussion, I'm not going to change all the links, and besides, the current page name can stay as a redirect; that said, I did check a few pages where this page is linked, and I noticed that most cases have already been pipeswitched Tecteun. So this will be an easy change. – n8 (☎) 15:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that this is unanimous. I, for one, still think "the Final Tecteun" or "the Last Tecteun" would be superior (concerns about this format for naming proper-name Time Lord incarnations at Talk:First Morbius notwithstanding). User:Caroniver413's counterargument is weak, as it is not the Wiki's policy to rely on unfounded speculation about future stories. When a character dies, we accept that they are dead unless there is an actual story stating that they will return; we don't simply say, in a purely Doylist sense, oh, it's likely that someday some Big Finish writer will decide to retcon her death. That's not how we roll.


 * I am prepared to go through with the dabbed rename all the same, should no one back me on this, because that would still form a consensus; but unanimous, it is not, and I think the change to speedy-rename was a bit premature. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)