Talk:Victoria

Rename Article "Queen Victoria"
I struggle to comprehend the rationale for titling this article simply "Victoria" and not "Queen Victoria." Look up any encyclopedic entry on Queen Victory, it will always be titled as "Queen Victoria;" the same should apply here as well. But if that's not enough reason to convince you, go and try to do a search for "Queen Victoria" right now, something which any person would type in when looking for information on this character in the DWU. She's the eighth result on the list, and people may not even be able to tell that this article is the one about the queen just by glancing at the search results. And that's to say nothing of the fact that casual fans who want to look for an article on the Second Doctor's companion Victoria but do not know her last name maybe brought to this article. I would say that the benefits to changing the name of this article far outweigh the drawbacks, but that kind of goes without saying because I honestly can't think of a single drawback. –Nahald ☎  09:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * All good points, although I just thought I'd point out that the reason she's at Victoria is the policy outlined at Tardis:Honourifics. Now, I'd also like to argue (in agreement with Nahald's arguments) that said policy also says, in the very first line, that:
 * Honourifics are titles that come before a name, such as Mr, Mrs, Dr, Professor, religious ranks, or military ranks. These should generally not be included in article titles, unless they provide the only reasonable means of disambiguation. (T:HONOUR)
 * Now as Nahald has already mentioned, using "Queen" here would be the only reasonable means of disambiguation, and she could hardly be considered a primary topic with the existence of Victoria Waterfield, hence disambiguation should be considered necessary. Danochy ☎  10:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are other potential means of disambiguation, but "Queen" is the cleanest option. Technically it should be Victoria (Imperial Moon), but that's even more unintuitive than the current situation. bwburke94 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Queen Victoria" would be a more suitable page name, for all the reasons already mentioned. LauraBatham ☎  14:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I remember a thread about T:HONOUR and real-world monarchs, opened by Amorkuz I believe, but I can't recall if it reached a conclusion before the forums met their untimely end. Queen Victoria sounds good to me, although I'll note for the sake of completeness that Victoria (queen) is also an option. – n8 (☎) 18:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am in support of this rename. It just makes sense and is more intuitive to the casual user (who probably has no idea that T:HONOUR exists). Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  07:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Queen Victoria should be the title of the page. 📯 📂 13:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Using an honourific for disambiguation is technically allowed by policy. But policy also dictates that this Victoria is a primary topic, as noted above. So there doesn't seem to be any reason for disambiguation. Unless someone could enlighten me? The main thing I'm hearing above, basically that "Wikipedia uses Queen Victoria", is not very relevant here. 03:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While Victoria being a primary topic and not needing disambiguation, the page name as it is currently is not indicative of the character's identity. So disambiguation is needed, in this specific case. 📯 📂 08:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A mad suggestion would to be name this page Alexandrina Victoria, with a template. Not sure if it is a good solution though.  📯 📂 08:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, what was "noted above" was that this Victoria isn't a primary topic: user Danochy wrote "she could hardly be considered a primary topic with the existence of Victoria Waterfield" (emphasis mine). – n8 (☎) 18:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)