Talk:Cutty-sark (witch)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Editors take exception to the proposal's assertion that fictional classes cannot be used for parenthetical disambiguation. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 09:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cutty-sark (witch) → ? – Witches aren't real (at least not as portrayed by Burns). I think Cutty-sark alone is sufficient per WP:SMALLDETAILS, or if that's too ambiguous, then Cutty-sark (Robert Burns) might be preferable. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Absolutely not to deliberate obscuration, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. But no great objection to Cutty-sark (Robert Burns). In ictu oculi (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not sure I understand the rationale: fictional characters aren't "real" either so I don't see how the current title is problematic. But no specific objection to the alternative. PC78 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per this is a fictional witch so the name works. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: per WP:NCDAB, a disambiguating term in parentheses should refer to:
  1. the class of things to which the topic belongs; or
  2. the broader context that pertains to the topic; or
  3. rarely, a descriptive adjective.
  Witch cannot satisfy #1, since actual witches (of the black-magic variety) don't exist. The class should properly be something like witches in fiction or fictional characters, or even Robert Burns characters, none of which is very concise. For concision's sake I suggested Robert Burns as something between #2 and #3. In any case, the present disambiguation is at best incomplete and at worst factually misleading, hence this RM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you derailed your own RM by proposing something else. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely left it open-ended. I'd be fine with almost any title but the current one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Witches are fictional creatures, Cutty-sark is a fictional creature, Cutty-sark is a witch. No contradiction here. No such user (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witches are not simply fictional characters. They are characters in folklore personifying society's fear of (mostly older) women, which in some places still leads to violence against women and other marginalized groups. Political figures such as Pat Robertson have used accusations of witchcraft to oppose gender equality; images of Hillary Clinton as a witch were circulated during the 2016 election. So witch is not a neutral term, and fails WP:POVTITLE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief. This is ludicrously over-sensitive and a laughable use of WP:POVTITLE. She is a fictional character and is portrayed as a witch. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's a detailed refutation of the above argument. Do you seriously think that the perpetrators of the European witch hunts thought they were hunting "fictional creatures"? Was the Malleus Maleficarum simply a work of fiction? When the U.S. president complains about a "witch hunt", is he alluding to The Wizard of Oz? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is your point? That witch has been used as an insult or a reason to persecute people? So that means we shouldn't use the term to disambiguate a fictional character who is a witch? That makes absolutely no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • See reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. So what if "witches aren't real"? She is one in the poem. Perfectly good disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Wikipedia articles about fictional topics are not written as though they exist in reality. The point of disambiguation is to help readers unfamiliar with the topic find the right article. Cutty-sark (witch) does not do this, for reasons I explained above, as well as being non-neutral. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which it does. In the poem she was a witch. The POV argument is utterly nonsensical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Readers seeing only the title won't necessarily know it's about a poem, or a fictional character, at all. The title suggests that a class of things called witches exists and that it includes the article subject. It would be like having an article about Brent Spiner's character in Star Trek titled Data (android).

        That witch has been used as an insult or a reason to persecute people is exactly why it is not a neutral term. Jim (Huckleberry Finn) is referred to as a nigger by Mark Twain's protagonist throughout the book. Just as nigger would clearly be a non-neutral descriptor, so is witch, even though both terms are true to the narrative itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        • I really don't think a comparison with the n-word is sustainable. In fiction, the word "witch" is often positively connotated, as in the Harry Potter books. Nevertheless, I'd have no objection to a move to reference Burns. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the N-word is frequently used by African Americans themselves in a familiar or affectionate sense. The point here isn't to equate the terms, but to point out that there are really no broadly neutral and factual usages of either term in a general context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There isn't a consensus that this isn't the primary topic, and some editors argue it may also be the ship, the area of Greenwich around the ship's dry-dock, or even the whiskey.

There is a suggestion for something like "Cutty-sark (fictional character)", but with several options along those lines suggested, I don't feel comfortable randomly picking one; I suggest a second RM be opened to determine a more clear consensus, to which this RM closure should not prejudice. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cutty-sark (witch) → Cutty-sark – Users opposed to the previous move proposal focused on the fact that the subject "is" a witch, ignoring MOS:REALWORLD, which says that Wikipedia presents topics from a real-world perspective, describing fictional characters as objects of the narrative rather than according to their in-universe qualities. Witches aren't real, so according to this guideline "witch" shouldn't be used as a disambiguator. For comparison, none of the other titles in Category:Fictional witches use the term "witch" except as part of a proper noun. The proposed title Cutty-sark is unambiguous per WP:DIFFCAPS. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Imagine a reader who is searching for something they know is conected with the name Cutty Sark. Entering "Cutty Sark" in the search box will throw up a number of options in addition to the well known Tea Clipper, including the whisky, a short story by Ivan Yefremov, the witch character from Tam o' Shanter, a pub in Greenwich, a private yacht, a 1920's flying boat and a station on the Docklands Light Railway. This rename, if followed by a swift click, would take them directly to a page showing a link to the disambiguation page which they would then have to click on to find the various options. Why subject them to the additional hoop jumping? WP:IAR trumps MOS:REALWORLD in this case --Cactus.man ✍ 13:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per this fictional character seems to be the basis of all its namesakes. Nom states that "witches aren't real", so they've missed out on some very nice people (and so close to Samhain too). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that witches are depicted in the poem as horrific and threatening, I doubt Burns had the modern re-appropriated meaning of "witch" in mind. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but modern televised fiction keeps the horrific and threatening exterior alive as well, so it has never gone away (and clearly is profitable for the media). It's a good way of hiding information in plain sight, kind of like the Church of the Subgenius material which uses the traditional techniques of chasing away almost all curious readers before they talk about the real stuff. But my 'support' was for making the exact wording and styling 'Cutty-sark' primary, as proposed in the nom, as it is the namesake of all the others. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The ship is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the dab hatnote is sufficient. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the ship is primary, then shouldn't Cutty-sark point to Cutty Sark instead of the DAB page? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Ambiguity concerns; see Cutty Sark (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then how about a less ambiguous title such as Cutty-sark (Robert Burns character) that doesn't violate MOS:REALWORLD? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose as proposed Category:Fictional_witches so (fictional witch) would be okay In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be OK with this. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, if "oppose is the close" then (fictional witch) works per accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you implying that real witches exist? YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I know many people who identify as witches. But I assume you are actually asking if witches of the type commonly found in fiction exist. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of whether witches actually exist, Cutty-sark isn't a "real" witch because she is fictional. Once again, the primary frame of reference should be the real world. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the Burns figure is clearly the primary reference: she has actual priority (the ship was named after her), the poem is better known than the ship, and in terms of cultural and historical importance, Burns comes out tops here too. Doric Loon (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The whisky is obviously the primary topic and its serious imbibers can't be bothered to type with caps. —  AjaxSmack  23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Primary topic debate is still raging. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is the original meaning. The ship was named after the fictional witch, and the whisky was in turn named after the ship. "Cutty-sark" versus "Cutty Sark" offers natural disambiguation. JIP | Talk 20:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as written. Would support "Cutty-sark (character)". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be OK with this as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The current title is fine and unambiguous. Known as a witch, whether fictional or not, and removing the disambiguator would make it ambiguous with the much more famous ship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - although these kinds of "punctuation" dabs can work, I think in this case there's too many other options and this one isn't well known enough. I think people are being a bit too literal about the witch thing and MOS:REALWORLD - you can still talk about a fictional thing. We refer to Harry Potter as a wizard rather than a victim of child abuse exposed to trauma whilst waiting for a train at King's Cross leading to him creating a world of imaginary friends. And that extends to article titles like Shazam (wizard), Bhoot (ghost) and Shubin (ghost) (not that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a strong argument). What matters is that it makes sense to the average reader - think of it as the Family Fortunes test, what would the average TV gameshow participant call it? Priority counts for a little bit, but is not conclusive over common sense - Boston is not about the original town in Lincolnshire. And priority doesn't apply in this case anyway, because the witch is not the original, she's named after the short skirt she's wearing. But even the primary topic is complicated as I suspect most people outside the UK have heard of the whisky rather than the ship, but since it's an export brand hardly anyone has heard of the whisky in the UK. So - I'm happy with witch, I'm happy with character, I'm happy with Cutty-sark (Robert Burns). FlagSteward (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in article title discussions actually is a strong argument, as enshrined in WP:CONSISTENT principle. No such user (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We refer to Harry Potter as a wizard. That article title is Harry Potter (character), not Harry Potter (wizard). Ditto for Abra Kadabra (character) and Wizard of Oz (character). Most of the parenthetical disambiguation in Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters and Category:Fictional robots uses "character" or the name of the work (e.g. Rover (The Prisoner)), not "alien" or "robot", respectively. Cutty-sark (character) would be consistent with this naming practice as well as MOS:REALWORLD. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Another question is whether "(witch)" is an appropriate qualifier. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, no PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Witch" looks to me like a legitimate description of a fictional character, but even if it isn't, that's not what's being argued here, this is effectively a discussion about the primary topic, which many would say is the ship. PatGallacher (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]