Talk:Larcenia Floyd

Conjectural name
It seems like it is becoming more and more common to have pages being named after real world names that were never given in the source material. Shouldn't this be George Floyd's mother? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No — for historical/rea-world figures especially, it improves searchability to use in this way. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the tag "merely announces to readers that we've had to make up a name for a thing because story writers failed to". That does not go hand-in-hand with using real world information to name pages when there is an equally acceptable alternative. T:NO RW goes into great detail explaining that we shouldn't use real world information when the source material fails to. DrWHOCorrieFan  ☎  16:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, crucially, this is only for page names. As per, indeed, T:NO RW, these names should not be used in the in-universe sections of the text itself — you should always write "Floyd's mother", outside BTS sections, using the pipe trick.


 * Page names are always a different kettle of fish than in-universe text — for example, when a character has multiple names, T:NPOV has to bend because the page can in practice only be named one thing. In-universe Susan's last name is Susan English just as much as it is Susan Foreman, but the "Foreman" version is more searchable, so we go with that, even though per T:NPOV and T:VS we shouldn't give a certain sources precedence over another.


 * Here, the idea behind this practice is searchability, which is a concern that factors greatly into page names (it's the rationale for Bruce (Doctor Who) not being Bruce Gerhardt, for example, even though that name does appear in a valid source). Larcenia Floyd is maybe a non-central example, because she's not quite a household name; in her case people are as likely to look up "George Floyd's mother" as her full name. But in most cases, people wanting to look up whether Doctor Who has ever referenced some real-world figure/fictional character or other — say, Bart Simpson — would not be helped any by a page named something like Little boy (Party Animals). The conjectural page-name allows searchability, and then the page itself, with the prominent template and the way the lead is written, makes it clear that the name doesn't appear verbatim in the source, so there's no confusion/real-world-creep to mislead readers into thinking the DWU source contains more than it does.


 * (The conversation at Talk:Tara King addressed a slightly different, but related, question, and you should probably read it.)


 * This is also in line with the decision taken in a Forum thread when COMIC: Assimilation² came out that, in a crossover story, we could use the over-crossing franchise's names for characters and concepts as conjectural titles, even if those names are not used in the DWU crossover itself (e.g. we don't need Assimilation² itself to define what a phaser is for us, we just call it what it is when we see one on-page). In a certain sense, what is a celebrity historical, or other interaction between the Doctor and historical figures, but a "crossover" with real-world history? The same logic applies, at least on this issue.


 * A point that applies to this and to the infoboxes business from our earlier discussion: I admire your commitment to going back to what the policy pages say. I sincerely do, and I wish more new users were this studious. However, much as it may pain one to admit, it, policy pages aren't an infallible holy writ — it's written by actual humans, trying their best to stay up-to-date with the practices and decisions of the community. In principle it should accurately represent all the Wiki's choices and stylistic decisions. But please, please try to bear in mind that if you stumble upon a widespread practice on the Wiki that isn't written down anywhere yet, the issue you should bring up is "this de facto policy needs to be properly recorded in a policy page", not "hundreds of pages and users, including admins and other long-time editors, are acting in error and this should be corrected".


 * Case in point, I'll now go make notes on Template:Conjecture/doc and T:NO RW to reflect the subtleties I explained above. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears you've heavily changed the rules to suit your own stance. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read the message above. What I have done, openly, is edit the policy page to reflect the current consensus/widespread common practice. As per Tardis:Who writes policy. Admins write up policy based on precedent, connected Forum decisions (e.g. the Assimilation discussion), and the status quo; a community discussion with a proper consensus is then required to alter that status quo.


 * Yet again: individual edits can contravene policy, but when the common practice across hundreds of pages and multiple years is not recorded on a policy page, it's the policy page that should be updated, not the pages. Then there can be a community discussion proposing to change the norm. But until then, T:BOUND applies. Please understand this.


 * And also, please stop making things so confrontational/accusatory! I'm not saying you've made a personal attack or anything, but you seem to be going into these discussions with an assumption that the people who disagree with you are bad-faith actors who should be confronted and called-out, rather than fellow editors with whom you have honest disagreements (or, in some cases, who might know something you don't about how the Wiki operates). Help:Assume good faith is essential to the Wiki remaining a welcoming space for users old and new. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You continually suspect me of coming from a place of bad-faith in these discussions. I have not once been confrontational or accusatory but you repeatedly read more into my words than that I am typing. You have heavily edited/changed the rules of your own accord since this discussion began, therefore I must relent on my stance. That is not me being confrontational or accusatory, it is me accepting your greater power/control over the conversation and deciding to draw back from the discussion. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am, frankly, at a loss here. But if it needs spelling out: it does in fact come across as "accusatory", and a lack of good-faith-assumption, to construe this situation as me "changing the rules of my own accord" (rather than updating the policy pages to be in line with the actual current consensus as already, effectively, practiced by the community), as you have just done. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you're at a loss how do you think I feel?


 * User: *Creates discussion regarding potential breach of current policy*


 * Admin: *Argues against the breach and then edits the policy to reflect their stance*


 * User: *Points out that the policy has been edited since the discussion began*


 * Admin *Accuses user of being confrontational/accusatory and tells them to use Help:Assume good faith despite them assuming the user of bad-faith* DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not accusing you of bad faith. I'm sorry if I inadvertently gave that impression. I am saying that you seem to attribute malicious motives to my and other users' sides of talk-page arguments of late, instead of accepting that we, at the very least, are just acting in accordance with our understanding of policy — and that you shouldn't. But I very much think you are sincere in these beliefs, and are doing your best to work within policy as you understand it!


 * It was, actually, helpful of you to spell out your read of the situation. But from where I'm standing, what happened here was more like this:


 * User: *creates discussion regarding a widespread Wiki practice which seems to be in breach of the letter of the law on a specific policy page and template-doc page*


 * Admin: *explains at length how the policy page was incomplete, and that this sometimes happens; explicitly states that they are going to update the policy page to make explicit the consensus in which light the current Wiki practice make sense; goes and performs these needed updates*


 * User: *construes the situation as the admin using might-makes-right to alter the policy; gets upset when it is suggested that this is an uncharitable read of events*


 * Do you see where I'm coming from? You're confusing the de facto policy (the "common law", as it were), which is the current consensus of the community and current practice on the Wiki — with the wording of specific existing policy pages (the "letter of the law", so to speak). The latter exist to reflect and reify the former. It is not an abuse of power, or indeed an actual "alteration to policy" at all, to edit the latter to bring it more in line with the former. The intended spirit of T:BOUND and T:POINT is that the current practice and consensus shouldn't be upended without visible discussion between a number of users. Not that individual users be allowed to declare that slightly-out-of-date policy pages should trump the effective policy.


 * Using these conjectural names is objectively the current policy, and it was before I made that clear on the policy pages. The fact that it wasn't clear on the policy pages was an oversight, and led to confusion, as evidenced by your earlier misapprehension; so I corrected this oversight.


 * Now that the current policy is clear, you very much can put forward a discussion suggesting that we alter it. I am just making clear to you that you are proposing to alter the status-quo, not to "correct" "breaches". Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't confuse anything. I understood the policy exactly as it was written, how is a new user supposed to know a common practice or consensus that hasn't been implemented into the written policy? You must understand how it looks to me... I started a discussion, you challenged my stance and when I argued back using information from the policy (that you had even presented to me) you went and changed it to fit with what your stance was. Now telling me that I've confused policy when I followed what was written to a tee leaves me with an incredible lack of faith in any other written policies due to fears that they are out of date or don't fit with current practice. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  17:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective, as a user who uses a lot, considering my interest in Who crossovers, it has been a matter than many users I've spoken to have agreed that the polices needed to be changed to reflect the current practises... the changes that @Scrooge MacDuck implemented have been long asked-for and are long overdue. I think, if anything, your questioning of the practise has actaully led to this much-necessary change, for the exact reasons of clarity and transparency. 📯 📂 18:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:DrWHOCorrieFan, sorry again if I gave the wrong impression: my statement you had been "confused" is absolutely not meant as a slight against your person, or a value judgment! Confusions happen, to everyone, and to new users especially, and there's no shame whatsoever in it; furthermore in this case it was a confusion born out of an oversight in how the Wiki's own policy pages were written. I was merely explaining why you were labouring under a mistaken impression; not saying this was anything but a completely understandable mistake. (I'd say a completely "forgivable" mistake, but even that would be implying that you would have been blamed for the error, which isn't true.) It's just a matter of, thereafter, accepting that a mistaken confusion of two concepts (through no fault of your own) was what happened, once the source of the confusion is made clear to you! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I just think that if in future a policy is out of date it would be wise to accept that straight away rather than changing it mid-discussion and then making repeated comments about another user having not understood it or having been confused by it. I was not confused or did not understand, it was outdated. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you man by "accept that straight away". This isn't rhetorical effect, to be clear, I'm not parsing what course of action you are referring to as "accepting" that the policy was out-of-date…?… What would you have had me do differently? I had not previously been aware that the current practice wasn't written down anywhere — had I known, I would have updated them long ago — which is why my first reply was just a laconic statement. Then you (helpfully!) quoted those pages at me, and my very next message was the one where I explained about the pages being incomplete/out-of-date and announced that I was going to rectify the oversight straight-away. Which I then did. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In your second post on this thread you basically told me that I shouldn't rely on what is being said in policy both in this case and a previous case (second to last paragraph). I think that is completely ridiculous, not least because you then go on to repeatedly direct me to other policies... should I actually bother reading these again if they're going to be misleading or wrong? If the policy is wrong I think that logically that is the issue rather than the user following it to a tee.