Forum:Relaxing T:HONOUR

Opening Post
I'd like to start this off by clarifying that this thread is not attempting to create a whole new policy, or even radically alter the current one. The aim is, in short, to expand our allowance of dabbing by honourifc.

"Another more unusual case is that of Grandma Connolly from The Idiot's Lantern. Normally, we would call her Connolly (The Idiot's Lantern) — but there are other Connollys in The Idiot's Lantern. Thus, it's clearer to just use her honourific to title the article."

- The part of "When honourifics are allowed" that is relevant to this discussion

From the above quote, many may deam this thread unnecessary, but it is not. The current policy only allows us to use an honourific dab when nothing else is possible. So for example, the individual most commonly known as "Godfather Sabbath" (in order to differentiate him from Sabbath Dei) is located at Sabbath (Movers) on our wiki, which almost no one would search and which requires pipswitching to "Godfather Sabbath" every time it is linked, anyway. I propose to that we change our dabbing rules so that Honourifcics are prefered over story dabs when disambuigation is necessary.

This, however, would not mean that all pages on members of Faction Paradox are changed to include their honourific (unless, of course, there are other similiar cases to Sabbath) - however I do suggest that we add redirects to some or all of these pages, as a user may well search for "Godfather Auter" when looking for Auter, for example.

Below is a list of characters who I think deserve a rename, and defintely do deserve a redirect (some already have one):

1. Vastra to Madame Vastra as she is most commonly refered to as that

2. Father Kriener as a redirect to Fitz Kreiner, like Kode is. Discussion on splitting this character should be left to Talk:Fitz Kreiner.

3. Waites (John Smith and the Common Men) to Mr Waites as thats what he's refered to, and the current pagename is very long.

4. Andrew_Williams to Sir Andrew Williams, as he is only ever refered to as such, inclduing in story titles.

5. Saldaamir to Mr Saldaamir as that's what he's referred to, and all sources featuring him state he only goes by that.

Additionally, although this is slightly outside the original scope of this proposal, I'd like to suggest we also allow for epithets, probably in a new policy called T:EPIPHET or something. Characters who would benefit from this would be (non-comprehensive list):

1. Brian (A Guide to the Dark Times) would be moved to Brian the Ood, as that is consistently what he is called in both valid sources, the Time Fracture stage play, and in fandom.

2. Epsilon (Out of the Box) to Epsilon the Watcher, as that's what they're called.

3. Rusty (Into the Dalek) to Rusty the Dalek, although as they're most commonly referred to as "Rusty" instead of the full, I'm okay if this one doesn't pass, and "the Dalek" is a very general epiphet.

4. Romana III (The Shadows of Avalon) to War Queen Romana, although again I wouldn't be too annoyed if this doesn't pass.

Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  08:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I support the proposed relaxation of T:HONOUR and the proposed creation of T:EPITHET, or something of the sort. I also support all proposed renames, except for the Romana one, which I'm not sure about. Aquanafrahudy ☎  17:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to change our policy in terms of page names - no positive argument for doing so is given in the OP, just a proposal. Perhaps redirects for these things, honorifics + names or names + epithets could be done? I'd be amenable to that. Najawin ☎  17:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FULL SUPPORT! Yes! This is so needed! Yes! Complete support for this. Those dab term-names are so hideous. Danniesen ☎  18:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support these, and honestly, I'd like to throw in that we move Victoria to Queen Victoria, and other monarch titles. Pluto2 ☎ 18:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For many moons, this has been the T:TF proposal I anticipated the most. I have grown very very tired of honourifics not being used in page names in cases where it's very obvious they should be. Young (The Sea Devil) is a disgrace. It should be Miss Young without question, no redirect can fix the fact that we simply have chosen the wrong page name. There are obviously many more cases like this. In some situations, "Miss" "Grandfather" etc can and are depicted as borderline being a character's "first name."


 * The only one out of the main proposals I disagree with is probably Vastra. But I do think the "Sir" angle could be difficult, as there are numerous characters (including Ian Chesterton and Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart) who are confirmed to be knighted but not in their first stories. So I think that should be a case-by-case thing. Brian the Ood being a redirect is a very obvious example of our policy not fitting the reality of coverage. OS25🤙☎️ 19:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Najawin - perhaps I didn't properly forumulate my reasons because I saw it as inuitive - does Godfather Sabbath not look and feel much better to you than Sabbath (Movers)? OS25 - yes, I absolutely agree that we should not move every character with an honourific. This should be a case-by-case Talk page thing. Aqauana - yeah, I'm completely ambivalent on the Romana one, just tossed it in their as an extreme example, partially so that people could say no to it now and codify that. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  19:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with most (albeit not all) of the renames proposed by the OP and other commenters above. That said, I have two comments and one question. – n8 (☎) 19:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there are already several instances where honourifics are used for disambiguation: see Mr Smith and King Arthur. Using this existing precedent alone would be sufficient to rename Waites (John Smith and the Common Men) to Mr Waites, and perhaps a few of the others as well. To the extent that this precedent isn't reflected on T:HONOUR, that's something the admins can rectify with the power of T:BOUND reform; to the extent that this precedent might be applied to any of the examples listed in the OP, that seems like something best discussed on the individual talk pages, where there's more space to weigh the evidence in each case.
 * Secondly, there's nothing stopping us from making redirects at common alternative names. For instance, the proposed redirect at Father Kreiner already exists. If it's thought that a redirect from War Queen Romana to Romana III (The Shadows of Avalon) would be helpful, any of us are free to create it.
 * Lastly, my question. The concrete proposal, italicized in the OP, is that "Honourifics are preferred over story dabs when disambiguation is necessary". I like this proposal for the reasons OS25 notes above. But many of the specific instances listed seem to go beyond that principle: for instance, no disambiguation is needed at Vastra, so why would we be moving it to Madame Vastra? (For the record, I am opposed to that specific suggestion.) So could we narrow down what the scope of this thread is, exactly?


 * That's very good Nate! In theory I like that a lot. But I do think it will get silly eventually. For instance, in Search for the Doctor there's a group of characters in one "chapter" named Captain Evans, Navigator Grundy and Engineer Floyd. Wouldn't it be a little weird to have Captain Evans on this one page for a character who's eaten by fish just a couple pages later? I think the policy makes more sense for characters who generally are significant, but for side characters it starts to feel a little silly. OS25🤙☎️ 19:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I know I'm going out-of-order here, but the conversation has moved on, so I'm just sticking this here for the record: "Honourifics are preferred over story dabs when disambiguation is necessary" isn't my idea; it's what Ettolrhc proposed as the subject of this forum discussion! I agree that Captain Evans would be weird and strange. – n8 (☎) 00:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Forgive me Etty, I'm not sure why something looking and feeling better is supposed to be motivating - I could easily just say "no" and move on. Is there a way in which the wiki is harmed by the current state of affairs? I think perhaps - that it's counterintuitive for users to navigate to certain pages. But this is remedied with the redirects. Is there a way in which the wiki would continue to be harmed by that hypothetical state of affairs? I'm not sure how. Najawin ☎  19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nate - Okay, well, if T:HONOUR can be changed to allow Godfather Sabbath then, well... that was the main point of this thread, so perhaps this could've just been done with the T:BOUND reform, in which case this thread may be moot. Huh, well good to know redirects can be created freely, I wasn't fully aware of that (as for Father Kriener... When I first wrote this OP I don't think the redirect existed... But that makes me look quite foolish, lol!). You're correct, I got overzealous with Madame Vastra. I fully accept that was a mistake on my part. OS25 - contra, why would it be better to have Evans (Search for the Doctor) than Captain Evans? The latter seems preferable to me. Najawin - (side note, please don't call me Etty, use Ettolrhc, or Cousin. Not you're bad as my signature was Etty for a bit, but yeah, sorry haha). Yes, the wiki is harmed by the current state of affairs. I pointed this out in the OP, but when writing an article mentioning Godfather Sabbath, one right now has to write "Sabbath (Movers)|Godfather Sabbath", which is longer to write than a simple "Godfather Sabbath". Additionally, if an article name is the most intuitive to both link to and search, naming the article that just makes much more sense than having it at a redirect. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  20:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin asks "is there any reason we HAVE to fix this rule?" I ask, is there any reason the rule needs to be broken in the first place? The simple fact of the matter is that it's an issue of Search Engine Optimization. If a Doctor Who fans wants to know more about Grandfather Sabbath, it is a huge problem that simply googling "Doctor Who grandfather sabbath" does not render the correct results. Thus, simply using a less clear DAB and a redirect is not good enough - if the page doesn't appear via Google search then the redirect isn't relevant to if the policy is functional. OS25🤙☎️ 20:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh please, characterizing my objection like so is obvious question begging OS25. Without said argument there's no reason to think the rule is broken in the first place. As to Ettolrhc's objection, let me note that what they're suggesting is bad practice. We want to write Godfather Sabbath (Movers), not Godfather Sabbath . As for the idea that articles should be named after their most intuitive / most searched / (perhaps most linked) redirect, let me point you to the What Links Here page of First Great Time War. This is not policy and would probably make our lives as wiki editors much harder, or would encourage stagnation on the wiki. Najawin ☎  20:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, let me suggest that this notion is precisely the reasoning that prevented characters like Odessa Smith or Nova Osgood from being located in the proper place for as long as they were. It should be rejected flat out. Najawin ☎  20:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I again emphasize that SEO is a valid reason to tweak the official rules. I do not think we absolutely need the honorifics in cases where we have proper names otherwise, it is clear that a page name like Sabbath (title) is far less useful to those searching online for information than simply the actual phrase they are likely to search for. Godfather Sabbath is a useful distinction because it immediately makes it clear to the reader how this character is different from Sabbath Dei - Sabbath Dei is not a "Godfather" we can assume. If Sabbath Dei does or does not appear in some random story titled Movers is not a useful distinction to most readers, thus it is not the best possible page name. Again, redirects do not help in this situation. OS25🤙☎️ 21:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if SEO considers redirects. If it doesn't, I absolutely concede that it's a reason. Big if though - Sabbath on FP wiki and Tardis are the first two results for "Godfather Sabbath" in a private tab, just as a quick check. Maybe ask Spongebob? Najawin ☎  21:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the rule of thumb is that we should rename pages which are going to use the | trick nearly 100% of the time. I can not think of an instance where I will ever link Young (The Sea Devil) as Young. I will like that page, 100% of the time, as Miss Young. Thus, using any title other than Miss Young makes no sense. Whereas with someone like Captain Evans, I could very clearly see calling him only Evans on occasion.

I believe this same idea has been previously used for Rose (A Rose by Any Other Name), aka Rose-the-cat. There's a similar situation at Miss Brown - at some point you could argue this forum is about clarify current policy and writing it down rather than totally changing the rules. OS25🤙☎️ 23:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * From what I've observed, Fandom's internal search engine considers redirects, but external search engines do not. Whether external search engines can deduce that Sabbath (Movers) is the Godfather without consulting redirects is a different matter. For what it's worth, I do prefer Godfather Sabbath to Sabbath (Movers), just because Movers is such an unhelpful dab term: he was mentioned so many times beforehand, and his appearance in Movers is so minor, that identifying him as "Sabbath from Movers" is something only the wikibrained would ever do. (In particular, there are many users to whom "Godfather Sabbath" would make sense but "Sabbath from Movers" would not, whereas I can't imagine how anyone could understand "Sabbath from Movers" without also understanding "Godfather Sabbath".) Still, though, I would prefer we have this conversation on Talk:Sabbath (Movers). – n8 (☎) 00:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I completely support allowing honourfics and epithets in page titles. And while we are at it, I want to make it fully clear if a story names a character Mx. Personname, we keep the full stop and do not do Mx Personname, T:BRENG be damned. Besides, we need that exception, otherwise we would be forced to change every single time Dr. Who is used on the Wiki which is a lot. 20:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've got a lot of thinking to do about the primary discussion going on here, but just as a thought for now on Epsilon's point - Dr. Who currently exists... but the wording of T:HONOUR at the moment explicitly disallows the use of periods on the end of Dr, as per usual British English rules. Dr. Who's page seems to have (sensibly) always been listed at Dr. Who. And I believe all his stories from 1965 to even his most recent in 2022 do refer to him as such: Dr. Who. As such, that part of T:HONOUR definitely requires examination for either an exemption or a complete overhaul of that rule. (T:SPELL probably also needs explicit notation that Dr. Who's page, the Cushing film credits & the Hartnell era cast section listings are exceptions to the British spelling rules on this basis, too.) JDPManjoume ☎  19:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, our policy should be that a character's name on the wiki should be written as it appears in the most sources. For instance, Mr. Bean should be at that page because that is his name, period included. It would be bonkers to list the character at Mr Bean or, worse, Bean (Dennis the Menace in Balloonatics). So why is Mr. Benn at Benn? I think we need a more consistent policy in these cases. OS25🤙☎️ 19:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I suspect in both the Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) and Mr. Bean cases, what we're doing is applying the Doc Holliday precedent: Cushing's character is not — at any rate not primarily, not explicitly — a man called Who who has a doctorate, any more than Hartnell was, but rather a man going by the indivisible moniker of “Dr. Who”. See also Mr Tickle or Captain Britain.


 * (This is not to say I oppose the reform, but I do think those highlighted exceptions have a rationale under the current policy, and don't just stick out without reason.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@n8 I apologize for the OP for this thread being, well, poorly written and articulated. My aim is not just to allow for more disambiguation, but also to rename character pages where the character is almost always known as including their honourific or epithet, for example Miss Young and Brian the Ood. I think the main reason for the unclearness of this is that I changed my mind without noticing whilst writing the OP, and then got excited when the forums opened and so posted it without properly editing. Let this be a lesson to me to do it better next time. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  07:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to note that I asked User:Spongebob456 about the SEO issue, see their talk page. They said they'll get back to me. Seems from their comments that they think it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but that we should use pipeswitches over redirects internally for webcrawlers, as that does effect SEO slightly. Najawin ☎  16:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure how much this overlaps with the exact proposal laid out in the OP but one relaxation to T:HONOUR I'd especially like to see is to do with the Spectrum gang from Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. Our articles for the four main characters (Captain Scarlet, Captain Blue, Colonel White and Captain Black) used to have dabbed colours as page names (Scarlet (Captain Scarlet in Death Crash!), Blue (SPECTRUM is Green), White (SPECTRUM) and Black (Capt. Black Mars Expedition Lost!)) and other more minor yet recurring characters still face this same fate as can be seen in Green (SPECTRUM), Fawn (We Will Destroy Unity City) and Magenta (We Will Destroy Unity City). Now, thanks to the story Traitor Black Gives In! our main four currently have their pages under their real names (Paul Metcalf, Adam Svenson, Charles Grey and Conrad Turner) but I believe this situation to be far from ideal.

The pages for these characters should be at their rank + colour combo in my opinion. They are the most recognisable names by far and the ones which will be pipeswitched 99% of the time. I'll also note that Marineville Ablaze gives Scarlet's surname as Metcalfe (which is actually the accepted spelling in proper Captain Scarlet circles) meaning a rename back to the dabbed colour might be on the cards. A story discovered since the original rename would result in the rather fortuitous Scarlet (Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons) as the article name but why can't we cut out the middle man and leave him at Captain Scarlet? Borisashton ☎  18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well I will say that a basic reading of Star Trek precedent says that we can just use the official franchise names regardless, but I would agree that in those instances "Captain X" is the proper way to address them, never "X (story title)". OS25🤙☎️ 02:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * See my previous example of Sabbath, I think the "X (story title)" page name is actually better for wikification. Najawin ☎  09:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin, thanks for re-highlighting your earlier reply. I'd be curious to hear how you address my counter-argument regarding the relative uselessness of "Sabbath (Movers)" as a page title. I'm not actually sure that Godfather Sabbath (Movers) is actually better than Godfather Sabbath, but even if one were to have that preference, as you pointed out there's nothing wrong with most links going to a redirect – in this case, Sabbath (Movers) being a redirect to Godfather Sabbath! (While not disputing the argument you were using it to illustrate, I'll also point out that First Great Time War isn't the best example: its WhatLinksHere only looks the way it did because the page was moved by a non-admin who didn't change the existing links. When the talk page rename discussion settles on a permanent name in one direction or the other, those links should be moved.)


 * Boris, I agree that Captain Scarlet is a clear case for this thread. Nothing is gained by Captain Scarlet . – n8 (☎) 15:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think "it's counterintuitive and weird" is a compelling argument when it comes to our dab policies, personally. They've always been counterintuitive and weird. Najawin ☎  16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ... I agree! That's not the argument I was asking you to respond to, nor is it one that I've made. – n8 (☎) 18:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think it is?
 * I do prefer Godfather Sabbath to Sabbath (Movers), just because Movers is such an unhelpful dab term: he was mentioned so many times beforehand, and his appearance in Movers is so minor, that identifying him as "Sabbath from Movers" is something only the wikibrained would ever do.

Surely this is just insistence that our dabing practices are counterintuitive and weird, and that as a result of their running contrary to intuition (only making sense to those with wikibrain) we should change them. This has always been the case. It will always be the case with some of our dab practices and rules. I don't think this is compelling. Najawin ☎  21:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Ahh! I misunderstood, since I did not and would not use the words "counterintuitive" or "weird", and I'll note that you've neatly elided my analysis of the informational content in the title options. But fine. If that's the extent of your response – "it does clearly suck, but our wiki has always clearly sucked, so there's no reason for us to make it suck less" – well, I'll trust other participants to decide which is more convincing. – n8 (☎) 21:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well I think that approach is backwards. You're basically never going to see the raw text "Sabbath (Movers)" divorced from any context except when searching for Sabbath and at said page, so the actual issue is whether or not you find Sabbath at any one particular location. (I can't imagine how it would be an issue on the page itself, you have all of the information there on the page - clearly this has all of the information that could be conveyed.)


 * So I just don't think the issue of informational content is distinct from that of it being intuitive from a search perspective. As for the idea that my response is "our dabbing practices have always sucked", I mean, it's more that there's always some degree of arbitrariness to them. I don't think we have compelling reason to move away from a more consistent system to a less consistent system when I think it hurts wikification slightly and gives credence to the same reasons that Czech used to deny the page names of Odessa Smith and Nova Osgood. I think we should be very skeptical of any reasoning that comes close to suggesting that page names should be what they're most linked at or most likely to be looked for. Najawin ☎  22:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)