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.


 * …You write:


 * "If the policy is wrong I think that logically that is the issue"


 * I. Um. Yes? Exactly?This is what I've been trying to say. That the problem here was an out-dated policy page.


 * As I made clear a few posts ago, I was in no way blaming you for having acted, towards the start of this discussion, in a manner befitting the letter of the policy. I was merely telling you (not blaming-you-for-not-having-known-already, just now telling you) that these particular policy pages had been out of date, hence the disconnect between how things were objectively being done on the Wiki and what the letter of the rule said. Saying "your actions were mistaken, because the guidelines you were following were misleading — our bad" is not meant as an accusation.


 * Relatedly: I am not saying you shouldn't follow written policy. Absolutely do, as a general rule, trust the written policy. Oversights happen, but they are unusual.


 * What I was advising you was simply: in those (hopefully, quite rare!) cases where you come to believe that dozens of other users than yourself seem to be breaking a written policy, you should ask yourself "Wait, but the policy seems to say [X]; does the policy page maybe need updating?" — rather than jumping to the assumption that it is necessarily the mass practice which is wrong. As such, when you don't notice a discrepancy between common practice and written policy, you should definitely trust the written policy; and if you do notice such a discrepancy, this is abnormal a problem, and you should raise the matter, either on a talk page like this or in a message to an admin (not necessarily me, to be clear!), so that it can be clarified or corrected as needed. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It is incredibly frustrating to see that you are still pushing the idea that I purposefully went against the masses or thought that "dozens of people" were wrong in favour of my own opinion. Now you can backtrack on that but it is clearly what you are trying to suggest in your last paragraph. Answer me this... how was I supposed to know that I was going against the masses? How was I supposed to know that "dozens of people" disagreed with me? I'm genuinely curious as to how you think that I should have known that considering it wasn't in the policy. I challenged a single user regarding what I believed to be a policy breach based on the written policy, I wasn't privy to the mass consensus and had no way of knowing that the policy was outdated.


 * Regardless, I did everything right on both occasions (starting a discussion rather than editing in favour of my opinion) so to be treated so unfairly and improperly, you yourself called me a "Rules-Lawyer" on my talkpage which I thought was entirely inappropriate, is again... incredibly frustrating, especially when I'm accused of being confrontational upon my reply. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  19:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You weren't "supposed" to know it. I have made it very clear, multiple times, that I do not blame you for this situation; that any misunderstandings that may have occurred were quite understandable. Nevertheless I was under the (I think, also understandable) impression that you did know. Your opening post above speaks about how "it is becoming more and more common to have pages (etc.)", which certainly didn't make it sound as though you were treating the case of Larcenia Floyd as a one-off. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the Shrek (fictional character) case a few weeks back. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  19:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case User:Shambala108 agreed with me that the page naming broke T:NO RW. So to see you changing that policy without consensus when another admin disagreed with you didn't sit well with me either. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  19:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Aah, I see. My apologies; this time the confusion was mine.


 * Though the discussion on Talk:Shrek to which User:Shambala108 replied about T:NO RW was about whether to have some of the pages at all, given that some characters' presence on the (in the episode itself, rather blurry) poster could only be known from the real world. The naming itself was not really the question at the time, and her post did not address it.


 * In fact, the naming, alongside other lingering areas of uncertainty, was one of the things I eventually addressed in the longer, fully-fledged resolution at Talk:Shrek, and I reaffirmed the norm about conjectural names there, with no objection from you at the time (though I realise you may not have had the time to read through the last additions to that talk page yet; which would be entirely fair enough, we're all volunteers here). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I question if you should be making these decisions/rulings/edits alone without consulting other admins. I have passed this onto Shambala and if they want to add their input that's up to them, but I'm powerless to progress this conversation. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It is the Wiki's nature that admins can't talk to each other, every time, about every little thing. I have not made any decisions/rulings. I have not altered policy. I have updated unclear/incomplete policy pages to be in line with the common practice. This does not constitute a personal choice; I would have done the same even if I personally disagreed with this practice. Tardis:Who writes policy explicitly states that admins have the right to write up policy pages reflecting the community consensus without needing a discussion. It is to actually alter the Wiki's practices that a discussion is needed.


 * I have not many decisions; I have clarified the way the Wiki works to you, and I've edited policy pages in accordance with Tardis:Who writes policy. You question in vain. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(Note: I wrote this prior to the last three replies above. There may be conflicting points or something, so bear in mind when reading my reply.)

@DrWHOCorrieFan - you have made somewhat of a mistake in your claim — while you are indeed correct that @Shambala108 agreed with your point about T:NO RW on Talk:Shrek... these situations are not in fact the same.

@Shamabala108 confirmed that your point that "real-world information onto pages as their counterparts in the DWU could be completely different" was indeed correct — and, I for that matter, do agree — real world information should not be used on a page if no valid source is able to be cited. In fact, Tardis:Valid sources does state...

But the matter of using the real world to derive names for pages is a different kettle of fish. A page name is not, in of itself, an article. Using real world information to give us page names is not writing an article, is it? And on that point, the Shrek situation comes up again: when you challenged the existence of those pages, that which you have every right to do, you challenged them on the basis that their existence, as supposed from that poster, could vary too much from the real world to conclusively draw any meaningful page from it. @Shambala108 agreed with you. But using the real world to name those characters, albeit in an out-of-universe way, is perfectly allowed. Because lets not forget that we were creating pages such as Dragon (fictional character), using the real world poster as a guide, despite the poster in the episode being so small that "Dragon" was no more than a blob of colour. 📯 📂 20:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:Scrooge MacDuck If it transpires that Shambala agrees with the original policy I suppose that means you would relent and revert your changes? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Perhaps. There would need to be a discussion. Disagreement between admins about the interpretation of policy is serious business (…the sort of business we'd really need the Forums to deal with correctly, but that's another kettle of fish and out of my control). We would have to debate the matter at greater length, in a proper discussion involving myself, Shambala, and ideally at least one other admin.


 * Though it's not a case of "agreeing" with the policy or not. Whether you, Shambala, myself, or Chris Chibnall "agree" with a policy is quite irrelevant. Our disagreement, if indeed there is a disagreement, would be about how to deal with the discrepancy between the common-practice/status-quo, and the text of the policy. Not about the value of the policy itself. It's not up to us: the community consensus is the important thing.


 * (That being said, I don't anticipate such a disagreement. I note, for example, that Shambala has not in fact renamed Fiona (fictional character) to Green woman (Dead Man Walking), or otherwise challenged my conclusions at Talk:Shrek.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that if Shambala disagrees with your changes it is only natural that they are reverted prior to any discussion as they were added without the consensus of the admin team let alone the entire site (who have not been given the chance to speak their mind). You saying that there is a mass consensus and there actually being a mass consensus are two very different things. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @DrWHOCorrieFan — while I do acknowledge the existence of Tardis:Who writes policy, for the removal of part of a policy that actively changes the way I create many dozens of pages, I strongly object.
 * @Scrooge MacDuck's revision was simply codifying the current practices and precedents on the Wiki — in that respect, he didn't change anything.
 * But for its removal, that would be a drastic change, one I believe must be discussed in a Forum thread considering the impact it will have on so many dozens of pages. 📯 📂 20:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, and to address a point in your previous reply, @DrWHOCorrieFan... many users, myself included, have indeed stated that changes ought to be made to reflect the current pratices — just becuase you didn't know about them, does not mean that they haven't already happened. 📯 📂 20:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No editor that isn't part of a tight clique would have known about these changes. And anyway, these changes have already been a drastic change to how I view the site so why would changes that negatively affect you be favoured? No, these changes must be reverted if another admin disagrees as they were added without clear consensus. Now, really, this is my last reply as there's nowhere else to go unless another admin steps in. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Two points:
 * 1) Where on Earth have you got the idea that the changes desired by the community were only formed an a clique? These desires have been enumerated in communal talk pages on this very site!
 * 2) "These changes have already been a drastic change to how I view the site so why would changes that negatively affect you be favoured?" Because a. there is no drastic change because the precedent set by dozens of pages already exists — the drastic change would be what you are asking for; and b. becuase my policy-abiding work is currently set across a veritable web of pages. Upending that could mean catastrophic consequences to dozens of pages.
 * 3) And also, no, even if an Admin does disagree with another Admin's actions, they do not have the right to supersede those actions if they are supported by policy, and that they are. If an Admin disagrees with a change supported by policy, then they must open a Forum discussion, like any other editor.  📯 📂 20:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:DrWHOCorrieFan: I have already pointed out to you that Tardis:Who writes policy doesn't ask for the "consensus of the entire admin team" before an admin edits a policy page. Please don't act as though I did something devious and illegal by making those routine updates. I am getting tired of repeating myself. Regardless, it is often the case that contentious edits are left as-is while a discussion about them is ongoing, so as to avoid assuming the conclusion and to have all facts on the table. This is why I stated that I was uncertain whether, in the event of a discussion between admins arising, the controversial changes to the policy page should be left to stand for the duration of the discussion or not. (Whether they should ultimately be reverted would, of course, be the crux of the discussion itself.)


 * It is flatly incorrect to claim that "no editor that isn't part of a tight clique would have known about these changes". You need only have seen dozens of pages across the Wiki, from Bart Simpson to Robert Fulton. Petter Dass has existed with a conjectural name since 2013, and was created as such by an admin. If you look at the edit history of Anthony Eden, you will also see no less than User:CzechOut stating the very same thing I have clarified at T:NO RW: accepting that the page name will be "Anthony Eden", but…

"…making sure we actually say this full name is not stated in Knock Knock. Also, not mixing unnecessary real life info on an essentially in-universe page"

- User:CzechOut


 * These practices have been the Wiki's effective policy, including endorsement by admins such as User:SOTO and User:CzechOut, for nigh on a decade. They aren't "changes" by "a tiny clique". Pity's sake. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in on this debate. Like so many discussions on this wiki, it's hard to nail down an exact ruling, because there is so much DW material out there. I don't really want to get into this, however, because I see a much larger, more important issue here. I've said this in another debate, but we need to be more welcoming and less harsh and strict with new users. New users inevitably violate rules because they aren't familiar with them (and there are so many rules); we need to make sure our response to this doesn't scare away new users. So instead of jumping on new users who violate Tardis:No personal attacks or Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point or Tardis:Valid sources or the like, we need to moderate our approach. Accusatory comments are not very welcoming. There seem to be a lot of new users lately, and a small handful that have enthusiastically jumped into editing here. Instead of jumping down their throats, let's make sure they understand, not just our rules, but our issues with the forums currently being unavailable and how we do things here. Shambala108 ☎  00:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ooof, this was quite a read. As an outsider admin, I'll add a bit to Shambala's comment, trying to bring yet another neutral perspective into this so that (hopefully) we can all move forward and put our efforts into edits.
 * DrWHOCorrieFan: I wholeheartedly appreciate your efforts in making sure policy isn't being written out of nowhere and to fit a single individual's view, I truly do, but I really don't feel like this was the case here. As Scrooge MacDuck mentioned in one of their posts, for better or worse all wiki edits are manual, and that includes the writing of policy. Sometimes, a practice (in this case, using for real-world people while naming an article) will become somewhat widespread without being properly codified into a piece of policy. Naturally, this will change if/when once an admin notices this, or when another user points this out (which was what you did).
 * Of course, said practice can be challenged (in fact even if written as policy) in case someone someone proposes an alternative. That said, Scrooge didn't shut down this possibility, and even encouraged you to do so, if you indeed disagreed with it.   .... which brings us to Shambala's latter part of the message: our Forums are currently down, and have been for a while now, which gets in the way of properly discussing matters exactly like the one you raised.
 * Overall, though, I think it's fair for us all to say that neither "side" in this skirmish had malice in their words or actions, isn't it? So, moving forward, if any of us wishes to carry on the topic of "Should this page be titled Larcenia Floyd or George Floyd's mother ?" (or, more generally, "Is it appropriate to apply for real-world topics?"), might I ask that we clean the slate and focus on the pros and cons on either approach? OncomingStorm12th  ☎  19:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * So just to note, coming back to this months later, having just seen this talk page, there is actually a thread affirming that conjectural names are kosher. It's just in the deleted forums. I distinctly remember this due to my (technically still ongoing) thread about loosening T:NO RW. I believe the original example cited was some sort of plant, but I prefer using the example of a blender. Which is why there are a few talk pages (just one or two) that talk about the blender precedent/argument. Czech closed the thread with reasoning akin to "every page must be called something, so unless we have a specific IU name given we do the best we can, we just don't use this in the IU sections". (For instance, for a blender, the page title would be blender, but the IU sections would call it a strange glass device with a metal rotor in it or something. Shame the forums are gone, but to the best of my recollection this was official policy even before Scrooge's edit, and not just in the "oh, everyone did it" sense.) Najawin ☎  08:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)