User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160124153152/@comment-188432-20160613202711

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160124153152/@comment-188432-20160613202711 T:CHAR NAMES mostly concerns itself with the case of marriage —  Should Jo Grant be renamed Jo Jones? As such, it's not the most relevant rule to this case. Instead, T:DAB is more controlling.

One of the important points of this case is that the rules laid down by T:DAB say that a person with an ambiguous name should have a parenthetical after their names to indicate the story in which they first appeared. That's very important. They must actually appear.

That does not seem to be the case here. There was no appearance, just a mention. Therefore the search, above, for the right parenthetical is wrong-footed.

What we have done in such cases in the past is to go with the shortest, least ambiguous term, and then just make sure the BTS note clarifies the fact that the character didn't appear. Then we say that the story strongly suggests/directly states/whatever the case may be that it's the person we're claiming it to be. And then we slap a wikipediainfo tag at the top of the article.

So, in this case, the best name would be.


 * ''As always, you will find some examples to the contrary, but pages like Camilla (Queen) need to be moved, and we shouldn't propagate their errors any further.