Forum:Notable Aliases

Original discussion
I've sort of had this thing niggling away at me for ages, so I've decided to tell everyone else. Do we really need "Notable Aliases" in the character infobox? Some of the aliases are hardly notable, a bit like when The Doctor called himself "The Rotmeister". Is that notable? Here's a dictionary definition of Notable: Worthy of being noted or remembered. I agree that all of the Doctor's aliases are worth being remembered, after all, as it has been pointed out to me before, this is an encyclopedia. But is the notable in "Notable Aliases" worth keeping? Some of them aren't even notable really. Take Veggie, as the Eleventh Doctor was called by the Dream Lord, is that Notable? On some characters, such as The Doctor, he has a full list of "Notable Aliases". Look over. and think to yourself, are they all "notable". I think we should get rid of notable and leave it as Aliases. All in favour? Ghastly9090 09:56, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Many characters, especially those who have been in more recent episodes, have "notable aliases" that are completely useless, or are names that somebody jokingly called them once. He even told Craig not to call him the "Rotmeister" as soon as he said it. Unless it is an alias that somebody is called regularly, like "John Smith" for the Doctor, it isn't really notable. However, whether an alias is notable can be very subjective at times, so it would probably be better to just remove them.Icecreamdif 21:35, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but can an admin see to this! I feel like me and Icecreamdif are being ignored!Ghastly9090 17:31, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Wait. You say that all aliases are notable, because this is an encyclopedia, and then you say that a lot of the aliases aren't notable. What? -- Bold  Clone  17:48, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * All 'Notable Aliases' for the Doctor are linked to the 'Aliases of the Doctor' page. This page details exactly what it says on the tin. However, 'Notable Aliases' was once just 'Aliases', but was changed because people were adding everything to the list, i.e like you said veggie. But since all the page for all the Doctor's link their 'Notable Aliases' to the Aliases of the Doctor page, and should not have anything listed bar that, it could just be changed back to Aliases. Mini-mitch\talk 17:49, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recall when it was just "Aliases". The Tenth Doctor had "Dad", so It was quickly changed.Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:46, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

New discussion
The infobox now says "Also Called" instead of "Notable Aliases" (or "Aliases"), and it's still being used for any descriptive phrase or one-off joking nickname for any character. In a few cases, there are Talk discussions or mini-edit wars over the lists.

Some examples of what's there now: Amy Pond is "Pondy" (as well as "Pond"), "Ghost of Christmas Present", and "Big Milk Thing"; River is "Melody Williams" and "Child of the TARDIS"; Rory is "The Pretty One"; Jack is "Captain Jack Bollocks" and "Il Diablo"; Donna is "Supertemp"; etc. Nobody's going to search the wiki for "Supertemp" to figure out which character was being refered to, and I can't imagine any other possible encyclopedia use for such a list.

However, in each case, it's hard to justify removing these entries, given that each one is consistent with the rest of the wiki, and there's no policy statement against them. So, I think what we need is just such a policy statement, so someone can remove "Captain Jack Bollocks" with a one-line explanation instead of an argument on the Talk page.

It's worth pointing out that this problem seems to be restricted almost entirely to new-series characters. We don't call Sarah Jane "Old Girl", Peri "The Girl", Henry Jago "The One With the Black Moustache", Compassion or "Stroppy Redhead". (In fact, we don't even call Fitz "James Bond", which he used that as an undercover alias at least three times.) It's tempting to say that classic-series and spinoff characters represent the intended rule, but given how much more effort goes into new-series characters, I don't think that can be justified. --173.228.85.35 10:01, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

I hate the entire article. After cleaning up the usual grammatical problems, I said to myself that a lot of these aren't aliases, they're insults or descriptors like "That a**hole" or "You remember the Doctor. He's old Mister Shultz' nephew's ex-brother-in-law" and suddenly we're seeing "a**hole" and "old Mr. Shultz' nephew's ex-brother-in-law". Or even, "You remember." I tried fixing it once and it was reverted. I'd rather see the article deleted than continue in its long, rambling and effectively useless form.Boblipton 10:53, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with 173 and Boblipton, and have been meaning to bring this up for a while. We should either remove the also called section, or come up with stricter rules for it. For example, on Jilly Kitzinger's page it makes perfect sense for her to have "Lucy Statten Meredith" listed, since she basically changed her name, but almost nothing listed for Amy Pond really seems significant enough to belong. People also seem fond of listing descriptive terms as also called. For example, until I removed it Oswald Danes had "Monster" listed as an also called. Gwen told him he was a monster, but nobody went around calling him "monster." Really, if someone is called something once then it shouldn't be listed. If it is an alias that they commonly use, or is at least significant somehow, then it should be listed, but random one-off joke names (like any time that Eleven says call me ___) shouldn't be listed.Icecreamdif 15:46, September 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think everyone pretty much agrees, both in the initial discussion and in the new one, but I don't think this will go anywhere unless we can come up with a concrete suggestion so Tangerineduel can just say "Sounds good, let's do it that way", and we can just cite that decision when removing all the ridiculous entries.


 * I think the key distinction is: We want aliases (alternate names), but not epithets (descriptions used metaphorically as names, including terms of endearment, generic nicknames, insults, family names like "Mom", titles that aren't being used Time Lord-style, etc.). Also, we only want aliases when they're used regularly, feature prominently in a story, or could lead to confusion as to the identity of a character.


 * Taking some examples:


 * Sarah Jane Smith used the alias "Sarah Bland" for undercover work in multiple stories; it features prominently in Interference, and in a few other stories the appearance of "Sarah Bland" could be confusing. So, it's in. On the other hand, "Old Girl" is just a term of endearment that Harry used for her; it's never treated as a name, and no one would be confused as to who he's referring to. So, it's out. (And the same goes for the Doctor's use of "Old Girl" to refer to the TARDIS.)


 * The Master used the alias "Reverend Magister" as part of his diguise in The Daemons, which was a prominent part of that story, so it's in. Likewise, his real name "Koschei" is in. (And similarly for "Dorothy McShane" for Ace.) However, "Skeletor" was just an insult once thrown at him to make fun of the fact that his bones were visible, so it's out.


 * River Song is the same person as Melody Pond, a major plot point across multiple episodes, so "Melody Pond" is in. However, being described (whether it's literal or metaphorical) as "Child of the TARDIS" doesn't make that her name, so it's out.


 * "Lucy Statten Meredith" is a new name given to Jilly Kitzinger that she uses for all legal purposes, so it's in. "Red" is a generic nickname used for her one time, so it's out.


 * "John Smith" is a name that the Doctor has frequently used when forced to come up with a normal, human name. "Theta Sigma" was both a nickname he regularly used at the Academy, and a code name used by the CIA, and characters have referred to him as "Theta Sigma" or "Thete" in multiple stories. So, they're in. On the other hand, "Gandalf" was just used once as a metaphor to describe himself to Amy, and "The Rotmeister" was a title that he once jokingly used for himself (and then immediately retracted). They're out.


 * There will probably be a few cases that people are on the fence about (like "Duchess" for Polly and "Professor" for the 7th Doctor, which I'd leave out, but I can see someone making a case for), but those can be argued out on a case by case basis (and each decision will be a precedent for future decisions). As long as we can find a way to throw out "Skeletor" and "Rotmeister" without throwing out "Sarah Bland" and "Melody Pond", I'm happy. --173.228.85.35 00:56, September 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. My advice: it's easier to get forgivvenness than permission. Boblipton 01:06, September 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with all that's been said. It's getting silly. We ideally need to change the title to something like "significant aliases" (ok, not exactly those words cos it sounds rubbish, but something with that meaning) so that, as 173 was saying, we get actual alternative names rather than just one-off throwaway descriptions for character. I think the best course of action would be to change it from "Also known as" to something like I just mentioned. Aliyoda 01:16, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so worried about the title; real-world police use "also known as" and it doesn't mean they have to add "Bro", "Man", and "Dude" to everyone's sheet…
 * Anyway, I think Boblipton is right. At this point, this thread seems like pretty good evidence for a consensus, so I'm going to start trimming the lists, starting with Jack and River. I'll bend over backward to make sure anyone who questions the trimming can find this thread and join in here. If anyone else wants to follow up with more articles, go ahead; if you'd prefer to wait and see how these first two go, that's fine oo. --173.228.85.35 06:31, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike that; I had Jack and Harold Saxon open in tabs already, so those are the two I edited first; River can come later. (Besides, "Big Fella" especially bugged me…) --173.228.85.35 06:53, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike that; I had Jack and Harold Saxon open in tabs already, so those are the two I edited first; River can come later. (Besides, "Big Fella" especially bugged me…) --173.228.85.35 06:53, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike that; I had Jack and Harold Saxon open in tabs already, so those are the two I edited first; River can come later. (Besides, "Big Fella" especially bugged me…) --173.228.85.35 06:53, September 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with 173 and Aliyoda, it should the aliases they use rather than aliases they're given by other people.


 * The infobox is essentially a summary of the article, so anything in there should be significant to the character, the aliases then should also be significant, they're alternate names used by those individuals, not once used names/insults/etc. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:48, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes as described above to both Jack and Saxon, with an edit summary pointing to this thread and the talk page, and a detailed explanation on the talk page, also pointing here. Mini-Mitch immediately reverted both of them, with no edit summary, and no comment. Aliyoda removed some of Jack's aliases again, but we've still got things like "Captain" and "The Man Who Can't Die", which are not aliases.

Anyway, I don't want to just remove them again, because presumably Mini-Mitch isn't looking at the edit summaries, the talk pages, or the Panopticon (otherwise, I'm sure he would have commented instead of just silently reverting), and it would probably just lead to an edit war.

So, now what? --173.228.85.35 05:28, September 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I left a message on User talk:Mini-mitch two days ago, and haven't gotten any reply. Again, we've got what sounds like consensus on this thread, as well as on both articles' talk threads, but an admin reverted my attempt to change the pages, and I don't want to just undo the work of an admin. What do I do from here? --173.228.85.35 06:19, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I've reremoved the aliases that you listed on the Master and Jack's talk pages. Hopefully, after seeing that two seperate users have removed the aliases, he'll take a look at the talk page.Icecreamdif 16:45, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Should the "Also Called" on the infobox changed back to "Aliases"?
 * Would this help to clarify what is meant as Talk:Jack Harkness? As User:Witoki seems to be arguing over the precise wording of the field. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:58, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we're keeping commonly used nicknames that might not be entirely accurate, but it would definetely by an improvement over also called. People are probably less likely to think that names like Captain Jack Bollocks or the Rotmeister are aliases than they are to think that they are also called that. It probablly would be best to moe it back to "Aliases," or "Notable Aliases."Icecreamdif 17:06, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be better to change it back to "Aliases".


 * Meanwhile, "World War II" is at least arguable, since Rex does use that nickname consistently; it's equivalent to Ace calling the 7th Doctor "Professor". If everyone agrees that one-shot nicknames and descriptive epithets don't belong, then maybe we can split the issue up: We've got consensus on removing "Captain Jack Bollocks", "Rotmeister", etc., so do it, and then have a separate conversation on whether "notable nicknames" belong. --173.228.85.35 04:53, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, commonly used nicknames like World War II and the Professor aren't nearly as bad as listing the 11th Doctor's habit of coming up with lame nicknames for himself, and lsiting every insult ever used. It might also make more sense since we have some weird cases like Ace, where the page title actually is her nickname, and she is almost never referred to by her real name. Personally, I would be happy with or without commonly used nicknames, as long as we get rid of the ridiculous on-off names that we have.Icecreamdif 05:01, September 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ace brings up a good point. It seems reasonable to list "Dorothy McShane" as an "Also Called" for her—and likewise for many Time Lords (Koschei for the Master, Mortimus for the Monk, Magnus for the War Chief, Ushas for the Rani, Ulysses for Daniel Joyce, Salyavin for Chronotis, and probably another half dozen I can't remember). But it's not an alias; it's her real name. So, that might be a good reason not to switch back to "Aliases" after all. --173.228.85.35 05:59, September 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, so if not Aliases and Also Called is still causing issues, what should we call it?
 * Returning to 173's earlier post should it just be "Alternate names" these being 'unique identifiers' for the individual, which I would hope would exclude names like "dad/bro" etc and also exclude terms of address like "big milk thing". But allow us some leeway with "World War II", as long as it's established within the article why that's an acknowledged alternate name.
 * As I've said before the infobox is a summary of what's in the article, so anything listed in the infobox should be backed up somewhere in the body of the article. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:11, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Names is less ambiguous than Also Called, but I can still see it causing some of the same problems. I can't think of a better wording, however, so we may as well try Alternate Names and see how it goes. We should make it clear, however, that the names listed need to be notable, so either actual aliases, or nicknames that were commonly used, but not insults or anything like that.Icecreamdif 18:49, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

On this subject, I fear that none is so deaf as he who will not listen.Boblipton 19:05, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, maybe we should go with Also Known As. It's more specific than Also Called, as Rhys did once call Jack Captain Jack Ballocks, but nobody knows him as this, and it is still vague enough to include aliases and nicknames and real names and whatever else should be included.Icecreamdif 19:09, September 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. AKA brings with it connotations from the real world (or at least from police shows on TV) that fit pretty well. Like George Moran, aka Bugs Moran (the nickname everyone in the mob called him), aka Adelard Cunin (his birth name), but not aka "Irish" (even though Capone called him that a few times when talking to the press) or "King of the North Side Mob" or "Deadly Prankster" (title that newspaper headlines bestowed on him). --50.0.128.155 23:24, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Another similar issue is pages like this one. The page itself isn't bad, but the entire names given by others section is pretty useless, particularly with the ninth and tenth doctors. To make it even worse, the section has a tag that says it’s a stub and people should try to add more useless aliases. It’s filled with completely useless names like voice of god, dumbo, great big outer space dunce, and pretty much everything that’s from the new series. That page, at least, is entitled “Aliases of the Doctor,” so there isn’t really any good defense to keep these completely useless joke names and descriptions.Icecreamdif 21:47, September 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It might be arguably useful to have a section on "Descriptions, epithets, and one-time nicknames" separate from the "Names given by others" (although I think I'd vote against it), but it's definitely not right to have hem all dumped into the "Names given by others" section. There's a difference between "Snail" and "Great Big Outer Space Dunce", and a list that has the former without the latter is useful.


 * Are there any other pages like that one? The only one I can think of is Aliases of the Master, and that one already seems good as it is.


 * Anyway, I hate to suggest that someone else do an edit that I could have done, but it seems less likely that it'll get reverted without thinking if done by a user with a long edit history than by an IP, so if you're willing, I think that would be better. And, while I hate even more to tell anyone else _how_ to do en edit I could have done, I have some suggestions on that, too. I think we want to do everything possible to encourage anyone who disagrees with the overall idea to come here and discuss it, and anyone who disagrees with one particular name to discuss it on the Talk page rather than just putting it back in. Being somewhat liberal if what you allow to stay (we can always remove more of them later), copying all of the deleted text to the Talk page (in a section that explains the reasoning and links back here), and giving an edit summary that refers to both the Talk page section and this thread seems like a good way to encourage that. --70.36.140.19 14:19, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are any other alias pages like that one, and the Master's is actually surprisingly lacking in one-off joke names(though that could be that some of the more ridiculous ones are listed on the specific incarnation's pages). I'll go to the aiaees of the doctor page and do what you've suggested, and see what happens. The pproblem doeesn't seem to exist in the classic series for some reason, so it's really only the ninth, tenth and eleventh doctors where there's a problem.Icecreamdif 17:54, September 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * It looked good to me (even down to the details of which specific borderline names you left in to avoid dispute, like "Mr Spock"). But again, Mini-mitch reverted it with no edit summary, no comment here, and no talk page discussion. --70.36.140.19 18:59, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Rob T. Firefly seems to have gotten into a minro edit war over the issue with Mini-mitch, who seems to have decided that "discussion between 2-3 Users is hardly a discussion... lease leave it how it is," though you would think that he would join the discussion to rationalize his position. I'll leave a message on his talk page asking him to join the discussion and we'll see if he responds.Icecreamdif 22:12, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you and Rob T. Firefly already left him a message. Hopefully he won't ignore it this time.Icecreamdif 22:14, September 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I left Mini-mitch a message after he first reverted me, and he kept reverting me anyway. I'm really not in the mood for an edit war. I think this discussion and Icecreamdif's edit to the page were all fairly straightforward, and I agree with the consensus here, but I'm not about to get sucked into breaking what Wikipedia calls the three-revert rule. Hopefully Mini-mitch will decide to make his concerns public here, or someone will find a more productive way to discuss the matter with him than unhelpful notes in the reversion edit summaries. &mdash; Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 22:20, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried reverting him and I left a message asking him to come to this forum page in my edit summary, but he reverted it back without even bothering to leave an edit summary this time. I can't think of anything better to do about it right now, so I'll leave another message on his talk page, and for now let's just hope that he decides to discuss this eventually.Icecreamdif 23:01, September 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a bit sad if all anyone needs do to take ownership of an article, disregard Tardis:Editing policy, and dismiss the work of others with whom you disagree is just ignore the community discussions and go turbo on the revert button. Mini-mitch is an admin, is this the standard to which admins are held on this wiki? &mdash; Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 20:28, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't read thorough all the policies, but is there any procedure for what were supposed to do if this happens. Should we report him to another admin or something.Icecreamdif 20:47, September 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second. While I agree with you both 100% on the articles, and I don't think Mini-Mitch has been handling this the best possible way, it sounds like you're starting to take it personally, and that's not going to help anything. Before disparaging Mini-Mitch's motives or looking for procedures to go after him or whatever, I think it's worth just dropping Tangerineduel a friendly note and seeing if he can get Mini-Mitch to join the discussion, and ideally we can get this resolved in a way that makes everyone happy. --70.36.140.19 01:16, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking this personally, but nothing is going to be accomplished if Mini-Mitch doesn't discuss this and continues ignoring any requests to join the converssation. I'm not looking for procedures to go after him-I don't want him banned or anything-I just want him to either discuss why he disagree with us or allow us to make the changes.Icecreamdif 01:20, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

OK, cool; sorry I misinterpreted the tone of the last two posts. My suggestion is still the same: drop Tangerineduel a line and see if he can get Mini-Mitch to join in here. --70.36.140.19 01:24, September 19, 2011 (UTC)