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)