FANDOM


  • Here. Even if I am not a big fan of discussing stuff that have already been discussed/decided quite a few times in the past, I think it'd be better to settle this one... definitively. And, I think it'd be better if as many people as possible are giving their two cents.

    The original suggestion comes from NickM98; I'm just reporting it here. Here is what he suggests:

    Since the convention for characters with similar names is to disambiguate them by the episode that they first appear in, I propose that we move Ursula (Deity) to Ursula (Ariel) and Ursula (Sea Witch) to Ursula (Heroes and Villains).

    So, let's discuss and decide. Do you agree or disagree about renaming these pages?

      Preparing Editor Spell
    • Personally, I still disagree about this rename.

      CadoDoan already have a perfect explanation about why they should not be renamed:

      Why follow a rule when we know there will be a misleading? If I were one of readers here, this would certainly confuse me. There's no reason for complication. This exceptional Ursula/Ursula situation has been good for over the years. Why need to change?

      And, personally, I'll just add this part to his explanation:

      This Ursula case is special, because the entire Goddess/Sea Witch stuff is incredibly misleading for viewers/readers. When we have to, we're making exceptions. That's not the first time that we do exception, and Ursula is among them. We have no reason to rename these pages, especially now that the series is ending.
        Preparing Editor Spell
    • We have pages following the format that could also be confusing. At least to me, Cinderella (Hyperion Heights), Alice (Hyperion Heights), and Prince (Hyperion Heights) sound like the version of Cinderella, Alice, and the Prince who live in Hyperion Heights. I don't think of the episode when I think of Hyperion Heights, I think of the location.

      Ursula (Ariel) does not strike me as anymore confusing than that; actually, it seems less confusing. What exactly would it mean? I can't think of any popular formatting for wikis/encyclopedias that conflicts with this. If anything, a user would see the page name "Ursula (Ariel)", think "what the heck could that mean?", click on it, and see "oh, the episode is named Ariel. Got it." No harm, no foul.

      That said, if we want to keep the signifiers "Sea Witch" and "Deity" to exclude even that brief confusion... why not make that our format? Instead of "Hyperion Heights", call the new Cinderella and Alice "Book 2" or "New Enchanted Forest" while the old ones are "Book 1" or "Enchanted Forest"/"Victorian England". Call the original Robin Hood "Male" while the new one is "Female", and vice versa for Jack. Gretel could be "Child" and "Witch" (or, again, Book 1 and 2). Some episode titles are annoying to type out anyway ("Anastasia (The Garden of Forking Paths)" comes to mind -- why not make it "Anastasia (Guardian)"?)

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • The point of making Ursula an exception is because we keep the current format. Changing our naming format, now that the series is ending, is unnecessary and not even in question. It works perfectly well, except in that one case.

      Let's stay on topic ^^

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I’m usually a stickler for rules, but I can go either way; leaning towards making Ursula an exception.

      To add, Ursula (Ariel) seems a bit odd. I say that as it is currently works and has worked.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Lady Junky wrote:
      The point of making Ursula an exception is because we keep the current format. Changing our naming format, now that the series is ending, is unnecessary and not even in question. It works perfectly well, except in that one case.

      Let's stay on topic ^^

      But it doesn't break anything to change it all, either. It's a relatively small amount of effort and we no longer need to make an exception. The current format works in all cases but one; changing the format to match Ursula's would work in all cases. And just because the series ends doesn't make us stop being an encyclopedia, so that's not a good excuse to stop a discussion.

      It is on topic. The topic is whether or not we should make an exception to the format. Changing the format is one way to eliminate the exception.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • DatNuttyKid wrote:

      Lady Junky wrote:
      The point of making Ursula an exception is because we keep the current format. Changing our naming format, now that the series is ending, is unnecessary and not even in question. It works perfectly well, except in that one case.

      Let's stay on topic ^^

      But it doesn't break anything to change it all, either. It's a relatively small amount of effort and we no longer need to make an exception. The current format works in all cases but one; changing the format to match Ursula's would work in all cases. And just because the series ends doesn't make us stop being an encyclopedia, so that's not a good excuse to stop a discussion.

      It is on topic. The topic is whether or not we should make an exception to the format. Changing the format is one way to eliminate the exception.

      Changing the format is NOT a small amount. It would take tons of renames and tons of updates. And this is not a small amount. Trust me on that, it takes work to simply rename one page so all of our pages?

      The current system works perfectly, while your suggestion is problematic. We would have zero continuity between all the specifiers, making everything an exception. We would have problems to choose them, we would have tons of unnecessary works and discussions. That is not how we work on the wiki as we tend to keep things as neutral and identical as possible. And yeah, the series' ending is a good reason to not go forward with something like that.

      So no, it is not on topic. The topic is very much easier: do we agree to rename these Ursula pages per our current naming format, or do we disagree and keep them as exception?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I like how both pages are named as deity and witch so I think they should stay as they are.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I've never had a problem with making an exception for her but I do agree that it is inconsistent, giving all other pages with the same name.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Lady Junky wrote:

      DatNuttyKid wrote:

      Lady Junky wrote:
      The point of making Ursula an exception is because we keep the current format. Changing our naming format, now that the series is ending, is unnecessary and not even in question. It works perfectly well, except in that one case.

      Let's stay on topic ^^

      But it doesn't break anything to change it all, either. It's a relatively small amount of effort and we no longer need to make an exception. The current format works in all cases but one; changing the format to match Ursula's would work in all cases. And just because the series ends doesn't make us stop being an encyclopedia, so that's not a good excuse to stop a discussion.

      It is on topic. The topic is whether or not we should make an exception to the format. Changing the format is one way to eliminate the exception.

      Changing the format is NOT a small amount. It would take tons of renames and tons of updates. And this is not a small amount. Trust me on that, it takes work to simply rename one page so all of our pages?

      The current system works perfectly, while your suggestion is problematic. We would have zero continuity between all the specifiers, making everything an exception. We would have problems to choose them, we would have tons of unnecessary works and discussions. That is not how we work on the wiki as we tend to keep things as neutral and identical as possible. And yeah, the series' ending is a good reason to not go forward with something like that.

      So no, it is not on topic. The topic is very much easier: do we agree to rename these Ursula pages per our current naming format, or do we disagree and keep them as exception?

      I agree with DatNuttyKid, the series ending is not a legitimate reason to suddenly abandon improvements to the wiki.

      And putting this into the too-hard basket makes little sense. Perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn't the original proposal only require a name change for two pages, not "tons and tons of renames"? This change would, as you say, "keep things as neutral and identical as possible" by bringing two pages in line with an established naming convention used across this entire wiki.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • NickM98 wrote:

      Lady Junky wrote:

      DatNuttyKid wrote:

      Lady Junky wrote:
      The point of making Ursula an exception is because we keep the current format. Changing our naming format, now that the series is ending, is unnecessary and not even in question. It works perfectly well, except in that one case.

      Let's stay on topic ^^

      But it doesn't break anything to change it all, either. It's a relatively small amount of effort and we no longer need to make an exception. The current format works in all cases but one; changing the format to match Ursula's would work in all cases. And just because the series ends doesn't make us stop being an encyclopedia, so that's not a good excuse to stop a discussion.

      It is on topic. The topic is whether or not we should make an exception to the format. Changing the format is one way to eliminate the exception.

      Changing the format is NOT a small amount. It would take tons of renames and tons of updates. And this is not a small amount. Trust me on that, it takes work to simply rename one page so all of our pages?

      The current system works perfectly, while your suggestion is problematic. We would have zero continuity between all the specifiers, making everything an exception. We would have problems to choose them, we would have tons of unnecessary works and discussions. That is not how we work on the wiki as we tend to keep things as neutral and identical as possible. And yeah, the series' ending is a good reason to not go forward with something like that.

      So no, it is not on topic. The topic is very much easier: do we agree to rename these Ursula pages per our current naming format, or do we disagree and keep them as exception?

      I agree with DatNuttyKid, the series ending is not a legitimate reason to suddenly abandon improvements to the wiki.

      And putting this into the too-hard basket makes little sense. Perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn't the original proposal only require a name change for two pages, not "tons and tons of renames"? This change would, as you say, "keep things as neutral and identical as possible" by bringing two pages in line with an established naming convention used across this entire wiki.

      I think you're doing a little mix up here.

      Unless I am mistaking, it seems like you're using the arguments about why the naming format is at it is... to justify the Ursula rename? I'm sorry but you're mixing up our arguments ^^'

      No one said it would be too hard/difficult to rename these two pages especially. I mean, just read the thread and other people' answers. That's not why people disagree with the rename. And, I did say "keep things as neutral and identical as possible". Personally, I think Ursula pages are one of these cases were it would be better to make an exception.

      Clearly, our topic is not going to move forward if we keep multiply different discussions and unrelated arguments. So, please, can we stay on topic and keep talking about if we should rename or not Ursula pages.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • My thought processs is this and in agreement with RCO:

      Is the naming convention inconsistent with Ursula as the only exception? Sure.

      Has it derailed the naming convention for other pages? No.

      Has it sprung confusion or general inconvenience? No.

      There would likely be another exception if things weren’t so cut and dry for all other cases. There’s nothing to differentiate the three Blind Witches besides episode number at least in epithets or titles or name-related matter, nor the Robin Hoods, and the list goes on.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver
      Eskaver removed this reply because:
      Offtopic
      16:28, April 17, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Eskaver
      Eskaver removed this reply because:
      Offtopic
      16:28, April 17, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • keep the ursulas as they are pls

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I can explain (besides community consensus) why the naming convention is the way it is and should remain the same.

      We can’t have Ella (Book 1) and Ella (Book 2) because Book 1 And Book 2 aren’t canon named/expressed elements in the show. Secondly, this would create a third branch to a character naming convention that we don’t need.

      Current naming convention: “If it’s a character of the same name, the difference is expressed by episode.”

      Ursula is the exception because there is a canon difference. Ursula the Sea Goddess is clearly an epithet difference than Ursula the Sea Witch.

      We have things like (Serum), (Wish Realm), different names due to PR like Valet, Henry Mills, Sir Henry, different names due to additional namin information like Rapunzel and Rapunzel Tremaine or The Witch and Gothel/The Witch. All are PR elements or epithets, last names, or just canonically expressed. Otherwise, they get the episode title.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Rename the Ursulas.

      Leave any other pages as they are.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I don't understand... What happens when we rename them? Especially when we have ZERO problem of having Ursula (Sea Witch) and Ursula (Deity), a system which works perfectly fine. Why is there a need to change now?

      You want them to be renamed, because you guys think we must never make exceptions and follow a rule at all cost. But you don't think about the complications that READERS will have. 

      If your logic did make sense, then we would rename them by the episode eons ago. But we didn't. Because this is the most suitable format for this situation. If one's suggestion doesn't help at all, but also complicate things more, it should not be used. That's just it.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Alright, first countdown.

      Disagree with rename: me, Eskaver, FanoftheMagicMirror, Edzz, CadoDoan

      Agree with rename: DNK, NickM98, Paul

      Tyson... IDK? I'd say Disagree but I don't want to asssume anything

      So far, 5 vs 3

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver
      Eskaver removed this reply because:
      Mixing two discussion together
      16:31, April 17, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Eskaver
      Eskaver removed this reply because:
      Chain of deletion
      16:31, April 17, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • I agree with renaming them with (Ariel) and (Heroes and Villains) as it keeps the format consistant with every other time we've had more than one character with the same name

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I agree with renaming them as Ursula (Ariel) and Ursula (Heroes and Villains) to keep the format of the wiki.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I disagree with renaming and to just keep it the same.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • (MOD): The Discussion is between:

      Option 1: Ursula (Sea Witch); Ursula (Deity)—Current

      Option 2: Ursula (Ariel); Ursula (Heroes and Villains) —Proposed

      Any other post will be removed and its corresponding off-topic chain.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver wrote:
      (MOD): The Discussion is between:

      Option 1: Ursula (Sea Witch); Ursula (Deity)—Current

      Option 2: Ursula (Ariel); Ursula (Heroes and Villains) —Proposed

      Any other post will be removed and its corresponding off-topic chain.

      I agree with Option 2.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Option 1

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Option 1. Option 2 is confusing, because it is the Sea Witch, who is is actually based on Ariel, so having the goddess with "(Ariel)" in brackets, gives the impression it's the other way around.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Option 2

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Rwo

      Option 1

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Deity and Witch 100%. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I vote for letting them stay as Deity and Sea Witch. To have Ursula (Ariel), the two names together look strange, even it it would be following the format of a character name + the episode of that the character first appeared in, for the simple reason "Ariel" was the episode name but it could cause more confusion since Ariel is also a known character on the show. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • So, if I counted right...

      Disagree with rename: me, Eskaver, FanoftheMagicMirror, Edzz, CadoDoan, Pohlranda3, Matheus1234zx, Lola, Rwo, Nakis, Nat

      Agree with rename: DNK, NickM98, Paul, Gusey, Lady Rapunzel, Pallid

      + Tyson that I am still unsure about...

      So, 11 disagree with the rename & 6 agree with it.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I'm unsure myself. I like (Deity) (Sea Witch) but I agree that it's inconsistent with other pages so I'm not sure where I really stand.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I disagree as well, if only because it is confusing to have Ursula (Ariel), even though I know that is the episode title.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Option 2. Just to make them all the same.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Option 1: me, Lady, Esk, FanoftheMagicMirror, Edzz, Cado, Pohlranda3, Lola, Rwo, Nakis, Applegirl, CDA

      Option 2: DNK, NickM98, Paul, Gusey, Lady Rapunzel, Pallid, Nick Branson

      Tyson is unsure...

      Option 1 has 12 votes, and Option 2 has 7 votes. I will update this with the new votes...

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • One question. How many votes we need to reach consensus??

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Matheus1234zx wrote:
      One question. How many votes we need to reach consensus??

      I don't know, but i do know that is more than the 5 from infobox pics/quotes. Major changes require more voting, but i dunno if 12 is enough or not. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Any other opinions?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I think we should leave the pages how they are for the same reasons as Lola and Cado.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I thought we had a consensus on this but leave the pages as they are (especially because a move would mean that we’d be dealing with fixing eight redirects for very little reason).

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • A Spy in the Mirror
        Preparing Editor Spell
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.