Talk:Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Novels: Fantasy Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.

Children's literature Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Requested move 2006

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion closed again... somehow the polltop template output was either lost since the original close or never there, if someone wants to find out exactly how and repair the damage, and preferably then archive the page, that's fine, meantime this is a quick fix. Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) → Mad Hatter – A more intuitive name, and the name usually used for the character in pop culture. I know it isn't actually used in the book, but don't think that's relevant. Robin Johnson 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey 2006

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as nominator. Robin Johnson 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Philip Baird Shearer 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but just barely - it's the name everybody uses, which normally would make it a no-brainer, but the fact that it doesn't even exist in the book makes it hard for me to support it. Plus, of course, there's mad hatter (small H) to mildly confuse things. - DavidWBrooks 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2006

I know I'm digging this up from 2004, but Wikipedia:Article titles says: article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Mad Hatter fits both of these much better than the current title. Robin Johnson 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow - that was pretty quick voting - four days, just three people, and zingo! it's done. Is one of you Katherine Harris in disguise? - DavidWBrooks 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church

Not everyone reading about the Mad Hatter knows about Oxford Colleges and if read in a straightfoward, this looks like a place name. Thefore I added the info. I can only shake my head on your edit summaries (is that better than nothing?) - how was my addition "incorrect"? If I didn't word it in the best possible manner, why aren't you simply correcting it to a better wording? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone reading the article will know what an Oxford College is either; we can't explain everything — that's what the internal links are for. "Christ Church College" is simply wrong — something like referring to "Sorbonne University". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then you could have corrected it. I take it that you have no objection to the current version? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're finding this so hard to understand. I took what was there before to have been perfectly adequate. Your initial change was incorrect, so I reverted it. The new version is fine (though the change was unnecessary), so I've left it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Ewart Gladstone

William Ewart Gladstone was mentioned as a possible model for the Hatter in the article about Theophilus Carter: "Further to this correspondence, W. J. Ryland, who had originally mentioned Carter in connection with the clockwork bed, testified that he had not known "that Carter was the original of the 'Mad Hatter,' but on looking again at the Tenniel drawing I see it is he to the life. To me," he went on, "he was the living image of the late W. E. Gladstone, and, being well aware of the fact, was always careful to wear the high collar and black stock so often depicted in Punch in cartoons of the 'Grand Old Man."^[1]" About Gladstone it is mentioned in his article that he was "matriculating in 1828 at Christ Church, Oxford"

Manorainjan (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Hancher was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

satire of heavy tea drinkers?

The Mad Hatter may have been a satire on heavy tea drinkers. I think there was some suspicion about tea's effects on health at the time, to the degree of alarmism. Offhand, I have no sources and it may just be erroneous memory on my part, but it may be worth looking at.--ChrisJMoor 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting information for removal of entry?

The entry has been a part of the 'The Mad Hatter in Popular Culture', a sentence or two, for the past three years. The Google hits remain the same, if not more prolific. Why was it suddenly removed?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.66.50 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury poisoning

I am aware of the "Mad as a Hatter" saying deriving from mercury poisoning, but are the symptoms really as they are described in the article? Ivan the Terrible is supposed to have suffered from it, and I'd hardly call him "shy" or a person who "didn't want to be noticed"- albeit whilst accepting that he is nothing like the Hatter either. Not050 (talk)Not050Not050 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Sure that was poisoning from lead pewter ;). Wht confuses -me- is that I had been taught that curium was often used in place of mercury after it's discovery, which led to madness more akin to that of the Hatter's. I have no citation for this other than teachings of childhood science books and whatnot. Can anyone verify or utterly deny that curium was used in hatting? Thanks --97.91.175.154 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC) aka MilquetoastCJW[reply]

If anyone has actually read the books, they will notice that the Hatter displays several symptoms of the famous 'dancing cat syndrome'. He is nervous to the extreme and definitely rambles. Why during the trial he leaves his shoes behind in panic and bites out of his cup! Please someone look this up further and update it or provide more evidence to discredit... March 29 2009 22:02 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.249.162 (talk • contribs)

the mad hatter is called the hatter hatters made hat in the days this book was written it is impossible for hatters to not have mecruy possion he is discrubed as mad the people and doormouse talks about writing anything with the letter M the march hare and the hatter kinda agrees it a hint the hatter probably has mecruy poisson thats probably what lewis was thinging when he wrote it and not actually staying it cause that no fun. he is called buy the cat the hatter and he wearns alice that he and march hare are mad then has a chapter called the mad tea party THEY ARE CLEAR HINTS ABOUT IT, like stewie griffin being gay not said or to scenes of stewie fanciing boys but little things people notice. clearly me and the person above has actualy read the books unlike others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Price Label

In 'Who Stole the Tarts?' the Hatter says that the hat isn't his (when the King asks him to remove it), since he sells them all, being a hatter. Doesn't that clear up the question of the price label? (Invalidating the argument that he left the price label on after the purchase, adding to his madness, as it says in the article.) 121.210.208.168 (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is a raven like a writing desk?" Carroll's answer.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_a_raven_like_a_writing_desk

http://www.eeggs.com/items/1928.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.178.79 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, "Poe wrote on both," I feel, should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.178.79 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Carroll's "answer" needs explaining, because I can't figure out what it the last part means ("...and it is nevar put with the wrong end in front"). "Nevar" is "raven" spelled reversed, I don't think that gives it any more meaning. What does it mean to "put with the wrong end in front?" Dr. Cheis (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A writing-desk has a front and a back, and one never puts the front, with the drawers, against the wall. -- Evertype·✆ 08:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes a little more sense with the writing-desk, but it doesn't really seem to apply to a raven as well. Unless it's simply saying they both have a front and a back. I doubt that's what it means because of how extraordinarily dull and generic such an answer would be. Dr. Cheis (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be renewing an ancient discussion, particularly one not terribly relevant for improving the article, but I noticed your comment and took the time to read this section. I had never before understood the proposed solution to the riddle, but from the above I see that "it is nevar put with the wrong end in front" is clever: we write "raven" and never write "nevar" (which is raven backwards); in the same way, a writing desk is never placed backwards. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Older

Actually they are called Mad Hatters for a reason... They used to make hats and they would make them with Mercury (Poison). They would put Mercury on the pin/needle to hold the hat together, once they wanted to change the hat again they would take out the pin/needle and place it in their mouth to hold it, such as we do today with other objects... once they got that mercury through their body it would poison them and turn them psycho. So they would call them Mad Hatter. and they did call him the Mad Hatter in the book and the play. He is a very real character... they existed in the old days!!! Don't comment unless you know what you're commenting about!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.46.189 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; but AFAIK mercury is hardly poisonous in liquid form (I even heard that you could eat it it would just pass your bowels; but that was 1965 when people were much more tolerant towards chemicals), but it is poisonous to inhale its vapor (e.g. if a drop of it rolls to a corner of the floor and is not found so it can vaporize on and on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.225.74.34 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10/6

10/6 is talking about the Mad Hatter style.it is said Have you ever seen people walking aroung with the stickers still on the hat? That got originated from the Mad Hatter. It stands for the what they call it the Mad Hatter Day.It is on October (the 10th month in a year) and the 6th day of the month. The average amount that they payed was 10 shilling sixpence. In Britian the Mad Hatter day is on June (the 6th month in a year) and the 10th day in that month. That is what the 10/6 means on the Mad Hatters hat. Thanks to him we have that style now to leave the tage on the hats.

By the way I am a 12 year old... and I also commented on the one right above this on what a Mad Hatter actually is!!!! I am very sad to see that you people are just talking on what you think this all means... not that you know!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.46.189 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Hatter from batman (comics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Hatter_%28comics%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.115.71 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seamstress?

How can the Mad Hatter be described as a seamstress? One he is he, not a she and secondly, millening is more than sewing hats, it includes making them the right shape, and selling them. 89.240.107.118 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an error

"Although the name "Mad Hatter" was undoubtedly inspired by the phrase "as mad as a hatter", there is some uncertainty as to the origins of this phrase." -

No, _the_ _origin of the phrase_ is clear (the mercury); what there is uncertain is whether L. C. created the character as a victim of mercury or to the resemblence of Th. Carter. - Yog-S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.225.74.34 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move October 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing the discussion. The result was inconclusive. -- Evertype·✆ 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Hatter → Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) — The move made in 2006 was not "more intuitive"; the character is never called "the Mad Hatter" in the book (perhaps in the Disney film) and so the name is inaccurate. Accuracy is relevant. -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as nominator. -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I object to EurekaLott's reversion (without discussion) and evocation of WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia guidelines are guidelines (not rules), and this character's name IS NOT "the Mad Hatter". The article is about Carroll's character, and should be attached to the character's name. WP:IGNORE trumps an erroneous name here. The encyclopaedia can indicate the erroneous usage (even if common) usage but the main title should be as proposed. (Similarly, grandfather clock is a common name, but the taxonomically correct Longcase clock is used as the article name. I think it is bad faith for EurekaLott to have reverted without discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 19:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not accuse your fellow contributors of acting in bad faith. You proposed a move here, waited a couple months, and moved the article yourself when there was no reply. That sort of unilateral action can hardly be construed as operating within consensus, especially when a prior discussion came to the opposite conclusion. If you still believe the page needs to be moved, please feel free to start a discussion at WP:RM so that you can get more input. - Eureka Lott 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You respond from a merely administrative position. You simply reverted without discussion. That is not conducive to belief in good faith. The original title of this article correctly referred to its subject. I proposed a change: there was no opposition to this. I reiterate my objection to your reversion, and I do not find "good faith" in your response to me. We are to Be Bold, are we not? Does this not include moving pages? Are you not aware that the subject of this article is incorrectly named? Have you paid no attention to the argument given? Evidently not: Your reversion was administrative, without regard to the merit of the argument. That is wikinannyism. And so, washing your hands like Pilate, you tell me to go enter into another discussion. But did anyone (apart from you, who have admin powers) object to the move I made? No. You just reverted because you Didn't Like It. Bad faith. -- Evertype·✆ 22:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you feel strongly about this, but please try to be civil. You are correct to point out that Wikipedia encourages users to be bold, but you neglected to mention that's it's part of a cycle. You made a change that I disagreed with, so I reverted your edits. I am happy to discuss the subject if you can refrain from making personal attacks. While you view the current title as incorrect, I think it's the most accepted name, which policy directs us to use.

Wikipedia operates on consensus. Please do not mistake a lack of response for consensus. If you wish to move this page, you must show that the current consensus differs from the previous consensus above. That's why I suggested a discussion at requested moves. Input from other contributors would be helpful. - Eureka Lott 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a newbie editor. You might check this. I'm also an expert Carrollian. You might check that. What I object to is an administrator using his powers to revert a move he does not like. That is not the same kind of editing reversion that can be easily undone. The admin has the power. I have not. In fact, now, you're telling me that I have to engage in a long bureaucratic process in order to deal with this. What fun. Instead, you're chastising me—instead of actually discussing the merits of my argument, you're still whittering on about civility. Why not address the argument? -- Evertype·✆ 15:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "consensus above" is weak at best, and dates to 2006. -- Evertype·✆ 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move (December 2010)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was move to The Hatter. --John (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to write an extended rationale for my action of closing this as above. I shall try to do so. There are three major arguments I see made here. The first is WP:COMMONNAME, the accepted principle that we call things by their everyday name and not necessarily the formal name or the name specialists use. Thus we have an article on Bill Clinton rather than William Clinton, although the latter is a redirect. This was the basis of the page move discussion of 2006, which moved the article to Mad Hatter, even though only two people including the nominator supported the move and one person objected. I did see some problems procedurally and pragmatically with this move (a wider consensus should have been obtained), and although this did not really play into my determination, it is interesting background and feeds into my next point.

The second is stability; it is a pain for various reasons when articles move regularly, so there is a laudable prejudice against moves unless one is required. I will come back to this point. On this argument, I observed that the article was stable after the move to Mad Hatter, from 2006 until late 2010. However, I also noted that the article was originally written in early 2003 under the title The Hatter, then was moved to Hatter (Alice in Wonderland) in mid-2005. This previous move was not discussed as far as I could see, at least not here in article talk. The article was at other titles previously for nearly as long as it was later at Mad Hatter, which somewhat nixed the stability arguments that were made.

Finally we have what we might call encyclopedic quality (and this one often, as in this case, fights against COMMONNAME arguments); as a serious resource we have a duty to take a serious attitude. Thus, as somebody said in the discussion we have an article at tsunami, and the arguably more common tidal wave is a dab page. This was the killer for me; as the character is not referred to as the Mad Hatter anywhere in the book in which he is a character, and so by continuing at the Mad Hatter title, we were very slightly bringing our project into disrepute. It was almost as though the Clinton article were to be located at Slick Willie (this is my, perhaps hyperbolic, comparison, and not one which was made in the discussion). This reduced any remaining strength of point 2 (stability) in my view, and I was thus minded to accept the arguments of the editors who argued this point over the roughly equal number who argued COMMONNAME. In this regard I was swayed more by the arguments of Sswonk and Evertype (which focused more on accuracy, my point 3 above) than by those of LtPowers and Eureka Lott which largely relied on COMMONNAME and article stability. There was an awful lot to read, but once I had read and digested it, the relative weightings of the three main arguments that I have outlined above really jumped out at me.

As in most article move discussions, there's no real lasting effect on utility to the reader (as a redirect is left at the old name) and thus the default should always be not to move articles unless they're at really unhelpful titles. In this case the arguments to be accurate and encyclopedic regarding the name of a character in a book seemed more compelling than the ones based on COMMONNAME, and the seemingly rather spurious ones that were made based on stability, and thus I moved the article back to the name it was originally created under. I hope the above makes my decision more understandable. --John (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reedited --John (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Hatter → Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) — The name of the character that this article is about is "the Hatter" and he is never called "the mad Hatter" by Carroll. Even if this name has currency (which of course it does), it is not his actual name, so the most appropriate means for handling that is via re-direct. WP:COMMONNAME is not a "rule" which trumps WP:IGNORE when in fact the question is one of accuracy. This is an encyclopaedia, not a measure of linguistic popularity. "The Mad Hatter" misleads users of the encyclopedia, which is why Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) is the more appropriate name. Many other Carrollian articles are already named this way—in fact, most of them are. "The Mad Hatter" is not "better" because it is inaccurate, even if that term is common, and users of that term are not disadvantaged by having the article reflect the character's actual name. -- Evertype·✆ 15:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from proposer Either Hatter or The Hatter would do if Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) is considered "too long". -- Evertype·✆ 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In terms of WP:NC Mad Hatter is clearly the preferred name, and I think this policy is both applicable and correct in this case so WP:IAR does not apply. But I do also think that consensus is changing and that proposals such as this, appealing to what is "correct" according to the experts in a field in the face of a clear common name which differs from theirs, are becoming more common and less laughable than they would have been just a little while ago. Strongly support it coming to WP:RM at this time, for that reason, and very interested in the outcome. Andrewa (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that "it is clearly the preferred name" doesn't make it so. It is a common misnomer. It is not the character's name. Lewis Carroll named the character. -- Evertype·✆ 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, perhaps I should have said preferred name under current Wikipedia policy, which I think is true, the policy being WP:NC. There's also a sense in which the preferred name is whatever this discussion decides. But really, I think the above is splitting hairs, and simply restating points already made. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that consensus about WP:COMMONNAME has changed in recent years. I was involved with the discussion about Longcase clock and Grandfather clock. The former term, which is accurate and comprehensive, is the one that was chosen even though the latter term is very widespread. -- Evertype·✆
  - In the case of Longcase clock, there was also the question of article scope. Had it not been for the question of whether the article also included grandmother clocks, it might have gone the other way. But I agree it's a very relevant case. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional argument supporting my oppose vote above: This proposal also amounts to original research, in that the only source quoted so far, the original text of the book, is a primary source, not a a secondary source. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice calls the character "the Hatter" throughout. Do you want more Carrollian scholarship? The same practice will be found in Carrollian journals like Bandersnatch and The Carrollian and Knight Letter -- Evertype·✆ 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firmly Oppose. This is the sort of thing which the language in WP:TITLE about pedantry is intended to discourage. Whatever Carroll's usage, it is customary to call the character "the Mad Hatter" - because of the proverb to which Carroll refers. Substituting a long, clumsy and parenthesized title, which may not be recognized immediately, for normal usage is not helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion below, and note that (your firm opposition notwithstanding) this naming pattern is the norm for Carrollian articles. -- Evertype·✆ 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note in the discussion below an alternative interpretation of that pattern, which doesn't support the move. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern is neverthless familiar to anyone using the Carrollian articles in the encyclopaedia. So it is not particularly burdensome. -- Evertype·✆

Oppose move. The character is commonly known as the Mad Hatter, and the character should be at the most commonly known name. Also, a page title that needs no disambiguation should be preferred over a page title that does need disambiguation. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The character is also commonly known as the Hatter. Carrollians scholars are careful to call him by this name. What is the problem with using the character's actual name? Mad Hatter can simply redirect. -- Evertype·✆ 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the move per the argument made by Evertype. J04n(talk page) 14:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per Evertype. It seems perfectly reasonable to me and the redirect can handle any confusion. Per the list below, this is more consistent with all the other AIW pages - Alison ^❤ 04:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for a move. The description by Evertype above of "Mad Hatter" as a misnomer is correct. Remove the parenthetical from the lead sentence: "The Mad Hatter is a fictional character in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and the story's sequel, Through the Looking-Glass." That is dead wrong, and is only written that way because the article title is wrong. The NC policy statements, such as was used in the 2006 move, have potential for misuse or abuse, as in this case. Do not follow what most English speakers would customarily use if the usage is incorrect. The redirection of Mad Hatter will suffice to handle searches involving the common misnomer. Sswonk (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most common name used to refer to the topic of this article is the current title. When choosing article titles we are not supposed to prefer the academically "correct" name to the name most people familiar (not expert) with the topic will find to be natural and recognizable. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making an assertion is not the same as proving an argument. However, in point of fact, scholarship is now receiving more consideration than it once did. Have you some objection to people learning the characters actual name? -- Evertype·✆ 00:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current title reflects the character's most commonly used name and is what most readers would expect to find. Moving the article to a less-recognizable title would be a disservice to readers. The nuances should be explained in the article. It's also worth noting that the character has developed a life of its own in popular culture and the various adaptations and reinterpretations of the story. For instance, if the IMBb can be trusted, the character is named the "Mad Hatter" in the Walt Disney film and the Tim Burton film. - Eureka Lott 06:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out that the "nuance" as explained in the article is fundamental, calling it a nuance is something of a…stretch. The totally incorrect lead sentence I quoted is not subject to different meanings, it is simply wrong. COMMONNAME is not absolute law. For example, witness Willis Tower and the arguments there from 17 months ago. It would simply be wrong to call the building Sears Tower in Wikipedia, that is no longer the building's name. This article suffers that type of "common name vs. actual name" problem. The majority may be wrong but we can handle that: title the article Hatter, and redirect the words Mad Hatter as well as placing them directly after the title in the lead sentence, as are done with the words "Sears Tower". Thus: "The Hatter, often referred to as the Mad Hatter, is a fictional character in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and the story's sequel, Through the Looking-Glass." The way it is done now favors Hollywood over Carroll and in a strict sense could be characterized as blind revisionism. Sswonk (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object if the lead was replaced with your proposed wording, but that doesn't mean that the article should be moved. Many articles employ a term different from the page title in the lead sentence; Through the Looking-Glass and Lewis Carroll are both examples of this. Carroll's usage is a very important consideration, but it can't be our only one. - Eureka Lott 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the lead change, the article should be moved back to its original title, based on consistency (the article list below) and precision (the character as named in the book). An example against allowing the common name to trump those criteria is the title of the Wikipedia article The Beatles (album), which is redirected from the common name The White Album. Sswonk (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sswonk. Talk about begging the question, EurekaLott (and I notice you now show a preference, so I think my complaint about your reversion of my move is not entirely without merit). Please explain, in detail, why Carroll's usage, and the usage of Carrollian scholarship (Hatter) should be a "less important consideration" than assertions by a few editors that Mad Hatter is "the most common" name. It is common. This is not disputed. It is also a misnomer. If the usage of Carroll and Carrollian scholarship is not sufficient, what, in your view, is sufficient "proof" against unfounded assertions? -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyed support. Since Carroll never used "Mad Hatter", then we should have the article at the suggested title, with the Mad Hatter title redirecting there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear. Powers ^T 20:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that WP:VAGUEWAVE applies specifically to deletion discussions, however this move request was made by Evertype in a detailed and respectful manner and I would like to see editors make contributions to this discussion in kind. As has been argued in several comments both above and below, COMMONNAME is by no means a one-size-fits-all application of policy, and is seen to have some flaws and detractions. What is both clear and also verifiable is the fact that Walt Disney Corporation did not write Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Sswonk (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I'm being disrespectful? That I'm engaging in vague handwaving? Are such accusations supposed to make me more amenable to agreeing with your opinion? Powers ^T 03:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks for your opinion, but why do you feel that way?" I am saying I think it's important for people to discuss their reasons for opposing the move, rather than only giving a quick blue link and very little else. I linked VAGUEWAVE because it shows I'm not alone in feeling that way about the etiquette of debate on Wikipedia. Nothing is an accusation, who in their right mind wastes time accusing? We want to get the title of this article back in line with what is verifiably Carroll's character's name. You could be a member of the Disney project, as you are, and I could mention that. Then I could write: "I hope you are not going explain that you are proud of how Disney has portrayed the Hatter, and don't think most readers who grew up watching the 1951 film and/or took in the recent one are going to be able to find the article if we take "Mad" away from the front of the title, and how like it or not, that's the character's name now, and who cares about Lewis Carroll and the few geeks who actually do?" Of course I don't really believe that is your stance, but because you offered no explanation for your opposition, I don't know any better, and someone other than me who comes along later might just think it is your stance. Unfortunately, that belittling type of prejudiced characterization of your view is all I am seeing with some of the arguments against mine. "You are just academic purists, you need to get out of the bubble and live in the real world like our readers." Only offering "WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear" when in fact several of us here have given specific explanations for finding fault with its application in this case does strike me as a bit disrespectful, because there was no reason given for that opinion; it seems like nothing more than a shrugging put-down. I hope you don't misconstrue this: in my initial comment and now, I am trying to be respectful in expressing that concern, and of course I would like to be able to persuade you to support a move. So, can you please explain specifically how you feel policy is "clear" against it? What about the example I give above: the article The Beatles (album), which is redirected from the common name The White Album? Sswonk (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypothetical version of my argument has nothing to do with COMMONNAME, so I'm not clear on why you would even consider it to be representational. Re: The White Album, I would argue likewise for a move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album, but that's not the article under discussion here; and in any case I could probably cite five articles that were at the common name rather than the official name for every one that goes the other way. As for citing COMMONNAME, I am of the opinion that it still represents the consensus of Wikipedia editors, as well as my own personal feelings on the topic, and that the predominant usage in specialist sources should not override the predominant usage in non-specialist sources, as we are a generalist encyclopedia. Powers ^T 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is what I hope to see; without specific explanation of how one sees policy applying, it is impossible to answer such views with persuasive insights in opposition. I would be stuck saying "WP:COMMONNAME is not clear" and little else. The hypothetical is a gross simplification of how opposers apply COMMONNAME, but it has everything to do with what is wrong with it. In one sentence: "COMMONNAME says use what people recognize, they recognize the Disney character, not the Carroll one." That forces the deliberate use of a misnomer, which we should never do. Our article is about the literary character, not the films that include him. So that is why I used that very cynical hypothetical example, because it shows the problem with COMMONNAME here. What people perceive is correct after years of being immersed in mainstream media and pop culture is in some cases not correct. Before I got here, the lead sentence actually said the Mad Hatter is a character in the book. No, the Mad Hatter is what the character has been called by others, but not once does a character called Mad Hatter appear in the book. We should make that absolutely clear by using the correct name for the title. Lewis Carroll is not a "specialist source" and John, Paul, George and Ringo with George Martin aren't "specialist sources"—they are the authors of the works! Radio disc jockeys and magazine headline writers who use "The White Album" are not, Walt Disney Corporation is not. That is what I see is wrong with your application of COMMONNAME in both cases. The examples you may cite, i.e. Bill Clinton and Guinea Pig to list two found in WP:COMMONNAME, are either promoted by the subject (Bill Clinton calls himself that) or are the result of independent and preponderant writing in which the subject has no voice (a Guinea Pig won't call himself anything we can understand). The Beatles and the Hatter are both verifiable names of the subject as provided by the subjects' widely known and respected originators. There is nothing that is "specialist" about that. Sswonk (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think I said much that isn't already included in WP:COMMONNAME, so that's why I simply cited it and stated that the course of action was clear under that guideline. As for the substance of your argument, Wikipedia:Official names summarizes quite well my position. Powers ^T 23:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did what is expected in good debates, which in this case is say what specifically in COMMONNAME you are citing outside of a simple blue link. There are multiple points in the policy to point to, and that is why I borrowed VAGUEWAVE from deletion discussions. I work to get editors to use their writing skills to explain things rather than just rely on bluelinks to policy or guidelines or essays. I was once involved in an AfD where the closing admin actually edited WP:DEL, a policy statement, in a way that favored his own closing of a deletion discussion in the next few minutes: [1]. That started a period of several months of serious doubt on my part over this project, because the leadership pretty much shrugged over such an obvious corruption of process in the following deletion review. My point in explaining that is that there is so much more behind a bluelink to an article in Wikipedia namespace than meets the eye. These policies and guidelines are freely debatable, fluid and even subject to corruption as I witnessed. So I find it very important to read another editor's reasoning in his own words. Similarly, seeking real discussion rather than simply links also helps avoid another (obviously not happening here but still possible) corruption: meatpuppets and off-wiki canvassing to gather !votes, allowing people with little or no actual knowledge to sway outcomes, with half just throwing out "BLUELINK1 is clear" and the other half using "BLUELINK2 trumps all", ignoring what is called for: discussion.

Regarding Wikipedia:official names, I believe that applies primarily to awkward constructions like State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, which is the official name[2] of Rhode Island. Obviously, Rhode Island is preferred and proper there, and is nearly always used except in formal legal contexts by the state. On the other side of that coin, we have The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill, which is the title of the song and also our article, not "Bungalow Bill" which many readers who have heard the song may have assumed. I would really like a thoughtful editor such as you to understand fully what is at stake here: we are talking about not allowing the dumbing down or simplification of the encyclopedia through decisions made by simply pointing to one- or two-word bluelinks when we really should be informing the reader of the verifiable true character name. Walt Disney Corporation and even promoters or reviewers in years before added "Mad" to the character's name for x or y reason, and the real name got lost in the minds of many in the public. We are writing about the character, and its full history, rather than trying to get people to pay for a movie ticket, on-demand rental or physical DVD. We have an opportunity to be clear and precise, while through redirects of the (longer name in this case) Mad Hatter name allowing readers to easily find the article and become better informed. To me that is a highly desirable outcome, reasonable and consistent with the precise naming of all the other articles pertaining to Carroll's characters. Sswonk (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To this point, I find the arguments of those who oppose the move to be little more than unsubstantiated assertions that Mad Hatter "is" the common name. Counterarguents have been ignored. Argument: Hatter is also a common name. Argument: Carrollian scholars are always careful to use Carroll's term. (Are experts to be ignored?) Argument: This is Carroll's character, not Disney's. The opposition seems to say that assertion is an argument. -- Evertype·✆ 09:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have explained why those counterarguments are insufficiently persuasive. Powers ^T 13:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't. You have simply gainsaid them. "Mad Hatter is the most common name" you say (without support). I don't see how this trumps "The Hatter is also a common name, it is the name used by Carrollian scholars, and it is also the character's actual name". -- Evertype·✆ 09:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the role of the article title to "inform[] the reader of the verifiable true character name"; that is the role of the lead section. Wikipedia:Article titles, which is policy, lays out the five ideals of the article title: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. "What the original creator called it" is not on the list. For each of the items that is on the list, Mad Hatter fulfills the goal at least as well as Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) -- and in the case of Conciseness and Naturalness, far exceeds it. Powers ^T 13:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, Evertype below states that having the move go to simply Hatter is fine with him. It could be either Hatter or The Hatter in my view. Mad Hatter is a misnomer that is merely correct as the name of the Disney character and should be redirected. Second, if we are to lean solely on one policy, then there is nothing there that explicitly states the title has no role either. We are not relying strictly on one policy, because this is, as are a substantial portion of all move cases, something that doesn't fit neatly in to one box. Mad Hatter does not at all fulfill the goal of precision (it is wrong), nor of consistency: all of the other articles, parenthetically disambiguated or not, are titled the correct name of the character. Third, many of the arguments above oppose due to the increased length of adding "(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)" to the shorter name Hatter. Evertype, maybe you should restate your support for the simpler title as an amended answer to each of those !votes as well, I don't know if that will help. That would answer the "conciseness" question. Finally: I suspect that at least one or two who came here left having discovered that the character is not called Mad Hatter anywhere in the book. With the correct title, hundreds of children and adults alike who find the article in the future will not leave after reading about it in Wikipedia to ever wonder about that again. It will be eminently clear. Leaving the hard coded title at Mad Hatter is catering to a misinformed mind, and coddles it further. There is not a more efficient way to end that practice than making the title consistent with Carroll's name for his character. Sswonk (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not support making this article the primary topic for "Hatter"; it should either remain a redirect to Hatmaking or become the title of the disambiguation page. Second, "precision" does not mean "precisely what the creator named the topic"; it means "precise enough to uniquely identify the topic", which "Mad Hatter" does quite adequately. Third of all, all of the other articles are titles that are both the common popular name as well as the name used in the original book, so citing them does nothing to help distinguish the case here. Fourth, I can't imagine why anyone would "leave" this article due to confusion over the name of the character! It's clarified quite well right there in the lead. As for your closing comments, I believe those are best left to speak for themselves. Powers ^T 16:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype is right below about your misunderstanding me. I did not write or mean people are "leaving" due to confusion. What I wrote first: "I suspect that at least one or two who came here left having discovered that the character is not called Mad Hatter anywhere in the book." What that meant: "Some editors who came to this RM discussion only found out about the correct name of the character once they read Evertype's initial rationale." I also used "leave" later: "With the correct title, hundreds of children and adults alike who find the article in the future will not leave after reading about it in Wikipedia to ever wonder about that again." Meaning: "Having the title match the text, infobox, images, and most importantly the actual character's name from Alice will remove any misunderstanding or actual wrong ideas readers may have had before they found the article." I don't understand what you mean by mentioning my closing comments "speaking for themselves", they always do and if there is anything wrong (or offensive or funny) about them you'll have to tell me. See below about Disney. Sswonk (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some rationale for insisting that Hatter remain a redirect to Hatmaking. (The word hatmaker is probably more common than hatter for the profession in the present day.) Second, "precision" can certainly be served by naming the article the same way that the character is actually names. You may not care about Carroll's choices and the integrity of his texts, but Carrollians and Carroll fans do. Carrollian scholarship is as serious as Tolkienien scholarship or Joycian scholarship. And the views of Carrollians having such merit, ought to be taken into account in disputes like this -- more so than bland unsubstantiated assertions that "Mad Hatter is most frequent". Third, so what? That's not an argument for ensuring that the article on this character be an innovation of Disney. And fourth, Sswonk did not mean what you suggest. What he meant was that people will come to the encyclopaedia with a misconception which will be cleared up after they have read the article. And the better was to clear up the misconception is not only to have a mention in the lead—it is to move the article back to its original pre-2006 title so that both the title and the lead are accurate. And I will re-iterate again that the 2006 "discussion" was poor at best. -- Evertype·✆ 23:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not "insist" that Hatter remain a redirect to Hatmaking, and I am none too pleased with your characterization of my preference as an insistence. I would be equally happy to have it be the disambiguation page, as both the Carroll character and the profession are likely uses of the term. On the contrary, should you want this article moved to Hatter, you would have to provide the evidence that it is far and away the most likely article sought under that name. I've no doubt that certain scholars love Carroll's works but I'd be arguing the same were it Tolkien or Joyce; the identity of the author has no bearing on my argument. I also don't get the apparent repeated insistence that Disney is somehow responsible for the naming of the character as the "Mad Hatter"; indeed, a Google Books search reveals a number of references dating back to the late 19th century (and, yes, they are specifically referring to the character in question). Please don't try to make this into a "Disney ruins everything" argument. Powers ^T 00:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no "Disney ruins everything" argument that I can see. What I am arguing is that the weight of recent history and mass communications, since the first part of the twentieth century, has culminated now in giving Disney's name for the character a predominant position in the minds of many people now alive. Walt Disney Corporation is not necessarily due blame for what was probably an innocent marketing choice. Mad Hatter sells, and Carroll doesn't have any right or ability to change that, it just worked out that way. But, we here editing and presenting an encyclopedia article know that. We can simply and properly state the true name in our title, we are not beholden to a bottom line, or the made-up name from a previous production, like they are. Yes, a commenter as early as 1867 wrote Mad Hatter, I assume because the phrase predates the book. But this is not like someone reading an imaginary Fitzgerald novel called simply Gatsby and writing an essay exploring the character the essayist himself then calls the great Gatsby. Fitzgerald titled his novel The Great Gatsby, the "Great" wasn't added later. Here, Carroll called his character "the Hatter" and someone else added "Mad" to it later. It is a misnomer. I don't find anything in WP:COMMONNAME that says "deliberately misname an article if that is what the average uninformed reader would do". Arguments here at this discussion which are seeing that in policy basically are exasperating to me. To avoid the Hatter and Hatmaking dilemma, I have suggested the alternative The Hatter, like The Sheep, with "the" not capitalized beyond as the initial letter of the title, that is reading "the Hatter" in article copy as in the novel. I am not what Evertype calls a Carrollian, meaning an actual Carroll scholar as he is. I am more a simple devotee, a fan, intrigued since an early age by the stories. Like Evertype wrote about people making assertions here, I am forced to sometimes rely on conjecture and weaselly statements about "readers" as well. Regardless, I join Evertype in asking for this change because it is good encyclopedic practice in my view, and I respect the readership's intelligence and trust they would appreciate having this article match the novels. A redirect of Mad Hatter to the correct name is called for, there is nothing that will convince me otherwise. Sswonk (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hpld the same view. Mad Hatter is not the character's name. The Hatter or Hatter or Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) would satisfy me. Mad Hatter does not, and will not. And as a Carrollian, who works to improve Carrollian articles, I would like to see some respect given to the facts. I am tired of having people assert that "Mad Hatter" is fine, or that it "is" the most common name. It is neither. -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you're confident that nothing will convince you otherwise, I'm sorry I wasted my time above. Powers ^T 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way did you argue convincingly that "Mad Hatter" was the appropriate name for this article? I saw nothing convincing. -- Evertype·✆ 23:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I argued my opinion to the best of my ability, but I'm not going to continue beating my head against a brick wall, especially after Sswonk admitted that said wall is utterly impenetrable. Powers ^T 00:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you never addressed the substantive question (about the assertion) and so your argument failed to convince. -- Evertype·✆ 09:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point if "nothing ... will convince [Sswonk] otherwise"? Addressing the substantive question would not convince Sswonk. Not the most convincing evidence or compelling argument. Not even Charles Dodgson himself returning from death and proclaiming "it's cool, really" would sway Sswonk from his reasoned and valid opinion. So why bother? Powers ^T 13:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgson releasing a new edition of the work using the embellished name might. But not convincing me doesn't automatically make moot any argument anyone makes anywhere. Your valuable thoughts are important, not only to me but to everyone reading this, not least the closing party. There's never a need to walk away just because someone uses hyperbole to reiterate their opinion. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: "Hatter" or "The Hatter" refers to what Carroll has written. "Mad Hatter" should be a paragraph which describes, how "Mad Hatter" came up. --DL5MDA (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I have no opinion myself, please note that the above discussion/vote does not support a move - enough people oppose the idea that there isn't a consensus to make the move. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David. I took the liberty of moving an earlier vote that was misplaced below in the discussion area to just above your statement, which is essentially your "no opinion" or "neutral" vote. Please see my response to your statement about consensus in the discussion area below. Sswonk (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although here and elsewhere I know I'm going against the current. Humpty Dumpty's views on words notwithstanding, redirects allow us to have our cake and eat it, too. IMO, any article title that needs to be disavowed or corrected in the lead should be changed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean like Mark Twain or Lady Gaga or Fonzie or Bedsore or any number of other articles in which we don't use the official or technical term but rather the one best established in the popular consciousness? Powers ^T 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have NOT ESTABLISHED that "Mad Hatter" is "the one best established in the popular consciousness". Nor are the four articles you point to analogous to this article. The Wikipedia is a place where we are expected to use our intelligence. The Carroll articles are a set, and just look at the article titles. Most of them have "(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)" appended to them. One of them, The Sheep has its definite article, and it has been proposed to use The Hatter for this article. The Wikipedia is NOT a place where we have to cater to the lowest common denominator in interpreting WP:COMMONNAME and, again, you have NOT ESTABLISHED that "Mad Hatter" is "the one best established in the popular consciousness" NOR have you argued persuasively (or at all) that this should be preferred to Carroll's name no matter how widespread the Disney name may be. Both I and Sswonk have said this several times, and not one of you opposers has addressed this significant issue. I call that bad faith argument (because you (all) have been asked to respond and you (all) have ignored the request), and I declare that WP:COMMONNAME is a poor and unconvincing response to this requested move. -- Evertype·✆ 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me, but I was specifically addressing Curtis' opinion that "any article title that needs to be disavowed or corrected in the lead should be changed." I was not attempting to rehash the arguments against this specific move. Powers ^T 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd excuse you, but the point is that your specific addressing of Curtis' opinion repeated the same unsubstantiated assertion which is the excuse the opposers are giving for not moving this article to a name which reflects the character's actual name rather than a later nickname. Moreover, none of the four articles you referred to are analogous to this one, because in this case experts on the subject matter (Carrollians) strongly prefer the actual name to a different one. That is not the case for the articles you mentioned. -- Evertype·✆ 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Curtis' comment suggests that it would be significantly better if the title here were The Hatter: the correct title would allow longer explanations about Carroll using the word mad around the Hatter as well as the later appearances of the name Mad Hatter in post-Carroll theatrical use to appear in a following article section along with the tie-in to the popular nineteenth century phrase "mad as a hatter", rather than in the lead. As I explained above with Bill Clinton and Guinea Pig, your latest examples are not analogous to Mad Hatter. Samuel Clemens published and lectured using the name Mark Twain, Stefani J.A. Germanotta performs and publishes using the name Lady Gaga, Arthur Fonzarelli was called Fonzie throughout the Happy Days/Laverne and Shirley production runs. Bedsores is analogous to Guinea Pig, a layman's term. None is a later alteration of a character name that originated in a published work, embellished by persons adapting that work. Mark Twain and Lady Gaga, like Lewis Carroll, are self-evolved professional names which were current when created. Fonzie was not called Fonzie later, he was called Fonzie by the other characters every week the TV series was originally broadcast. Try this link: Alice in Wonderland. It doesn't go to an article titled with that popular and commonly used theatrical name given to most plays and films based on the two novels which contain the 32 characters above. It goes to the correct title of the first book. It is redirected, as Mad Hatter should be to The Hatter. LtPowers, you are still arguing beside the point, not to the point that this article is not about the "Mad Hatter", the phrase "Mad Hatter" is actually about the subject of this article, in other words the "Mad Hatter" is a later, related but not equal, adaptation of the actual subject, the Hatter. As long as you keep arguing apples and oranges, you get nowhere. When this is moved to the correct title, we would still have the words Mad Hatter in bold in the lead to help reassure the reader as I suggested above. The leads from all four of your examples are not in the same ballpark, as I have now explained a second time. The argument from COMMONNAME you are trying to apply with your examples is not applicable to a verifiable name of an authored character, in the same way The White Album is not applicable to The Beatles and Alice in Wonderland is not applicable to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland as an article title. Neither of the common names is the true, verifiable, actual name of the work. They are also not the titles of the Wikipedia articles. Sswonk (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, for crying out loud! If the outcome of this RM was determined by the volume of commentary on the topic, you and Evertype would win hands down! I was not making an analogy between this article and the four I mentioned; I was providing specific counterexamples to Curtis's suggestion that "any article title that needs to be disavowed or corrected in the lead should be changed." Those four article titles are to my mind, and those of many others, correct as they stand, despite the fact that they must be "disavowed or corrected in the lead". The fact that that's the case has nothing to do with this article's title, as this article may or may not be at the best title completely independently of whether those other four articles are or not. I was simply pointing out that Curtis's metric -- that any article title that is not 'official' is prima facie wrong -- is not one that we follow here on Wikipedia; there may very well be plenty of other reasons to move this article. Powers ^T 03:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yet even here, LtPowers, you are not addressing the substantive argument, which we have given many times over now. -- Evertype·✆ 09:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, I am a putting a lot of work into this. I remembered a few days ago that you wrote "I could probably cite five articles that were at the common name rather than the official name" and then just now listed those four as examples of "articles in which we don't use the official or technical term but rather the one best established in the popular consciousness", so I saw it as the same drumbeat. You were writing about what Curtis wrote. Personally I wouldn't characterize for example the lead of Mark Twain as disavowing or correcting anything about Samuel Clemens being his real name. It is confirming and follows the bibliographic pattern of WP:MOSBIO for people famous under a name different than their birth, like Annie Oakley, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Little Richard and so on. Regarding the volume of commentary, I feel like I'm done. You keep gamely filibustering on here, and I responded to this point. I think consensus for The Hatter is approachable, that is what I'd like you to see but it appears you won't. For about a week, outside a couple of laissez-faire comments by David, no one other than you has made an attempt to rebut the solid arguments we are making from verifiability and consistency. That silence since the end of December may be significant, or it may not. Sswonk (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My metric was misconstrued. Samuel Clemens would not be surprised that Mark Twain was about him. Lewis Carroll would no doubt be puzzled that Mad Hatter was about his character. One might even say that "Mad Hatter" is a misnomer. Although I don't categorically reject the use of misnomers as article titles, I think their use requires careful case-by-case consideration and justification.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think it is clear that the article should be moved to The Hatter. I have seen no counter-argument against this. -- Evertype·✆ 09:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Maybe it's futile to try to have a neat poll at this stage, but let's start a discussion section anyway. Andrewa (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have neatened the polls, I think. -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Article titles#The argument from accuracy for more thoughts on some of the arguments above. Andrewa (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is worth noting other article names about characters from these books:

It would appear to be no serious inconsistency were the present article to be named Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) -- Evertype·✆ 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noticing that Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) is the original name of this article, and that the "consensus discussion" which moved it in 2006 is not compelling. -- Evertype·✆ 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern above seems to be that the articles go by the common name, disambiguated where necessary, which is exactly what the article naming policy seems to suggest. I see no relevance at all to the current discussion, as there seem to be no cases above where Caroll's name is preferred to a different common name, as proposed in this move request. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to have the article simply named Hatter (with a hatnote pointing to Hatmaking), if you think that Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) is too long. I object to the article being listed under a misnomer, whether it is common or not. An encyclopaedia should instruct. -- Evertype·✆ 12:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when I think wikipedia would be better as a benign dictatorship .... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which means your view is—? -- Evertype·✆ 10:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That it doesn't matter, since we set up redirects from all the various usages to wherever the article lands. Nobody will fail to find this article, no matter which title we use - and that's what mattes: The readers, not us. Out of laziness, I'd leave it alone and spend all this high-level editorial energy on more interesting and/or useful questions. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that, the "controlling" document WP:TITLE and common sense will both tell you that the title is like the "name" of a team, person, structure, etc. in real life—it means something. Yeah, I get the part about redirects and so on, but the title does have serious implications. It represents formality, and summarizes to the extreme the topic. If you fall on the "support" side logically, I believe you do since you were the lone voice of dissent in 2006, but don't wish to defend, couldn't you just restate what you wrote there that the name Mad Hatter does not occur in the book? Very little effort involved, you can still celebrate laziness! The craziness and chest beating over these issues can be numbing, I get the existentialist cynical blues too. But in the end there would be no encyclopedia if not for the need to educate. If the readers matter most, we should help insure they don't leave after reading still using a misnomer, and moving the article would do that with highest efficiency. Sswonk (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:TITLE says that the "article title means something"? Those of us who have written the thing have done our best to ensure that it says that article titles aren't names, and don't have magical significance; in part to quiet the perpetual warfare for the "right" name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My meaning, in my response to DavidWBrooks, was that the title is not "meaningless", or "yes, it does matter." I won't get caught up in navel gazing beyond saying that the project wouldn't have a policy entry about titles if that were not the case. Ceci n'est pas une pipe and so on. I get that view of things. However, you are seriously headed on the wrong course if you seek to remove meaning with policy. Titles are used to identify. Titles absolutely have meaning by their essence. F- magical significance, but don't title an article with a misnomer in deference to Hollywood. Not everything editors profess can be mocked to death in the name of satisfying the least common denominator of a simplistic definition of "the reader". We're here to help educate and inform, not entertain. Titles have meaning and credibility very much matters when presenting an encyclopedia. We are at an endpoint. Beyond this, arguing is silly. I won't get caught up. Simply understand I won't be sold a bill of goods, i.e. the concept that titles are meaningless. Sswonk (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The choices seem to be an accurate title that few people get when they see it (e.g., Hatter), an accurate but convoluted title that nobody will remember (e.g.,Hatter (Alice in Wonderland character)), or an inaccurate title that people do get and remember (e.g., Mad Hatter). None is (or "are", both are fine) completely right. None seems an obvious choice given wikipedia standards and tradition. All are partly bad. So just leave it as is - that's my vote. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. To me, The Hatter is obvious, since that is what Carroll called the character[3] and that is what the article is about. Sswonk (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can support The Hatter. -- Evertype·✆

Dave, if you think it doesn't matter, then you should have no objection to moving the article in order to satisfy those who do. -- Evertype·✆ 00:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - I'm not voting/opining/weighing in, one way or the other. Just as long as the move is done properly I don't think it matters. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out again that the move in 2006 was not "done properly". The argument was poor and the participation of the community was less than comprehensive. -- Evertype·✆ 09:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the view of lack of consensus expressed by DavidWBrooks in the voting area: I don't know what to do about consensus here. If strength of argument is all it takes, I feel Mad Hatter is not supported well enough, that it was moved to that title with scant discussion in 2006, and a move away from it is fairly exhaustively supported by logic and argument in this RM. I am not a brick wall, I understand why it is difficult to see the rationale in some ways, but I am thoroughly in support of the move and steadfast in that support. Nothing that has been said has differed from the first arguments against the move, and few of the arguments by either myself or Evertype for the move have been rebutted effectively. I think this is because what is not regarded by those who oppose is that this Wikipedia article is one of a series on the characters created by Lewis Carroll for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. The series contains 32 articles, all of which were listed above. There is only one article that is titled using a misnomer. This one. That is why this move is being requested. The articles are about the characters written about by Carroll in those two works. I feel it has been indisputably shown that the verifiable name of the character in the novels is the Hatter, without the word Mad added in front. This is a fact that also satisfies the Wikipedia pillar of neutrality: there is no scholar A vs. scholar B dispute over Carroll's name of the character, it is not even open for debate, so we have an easy time maintaining neutrality there. I have already stated I am not a Carroll scholar. I have however looked into the naming issue at hand using internet search, and can report (it is original research no doubt but give it a listen, please) that it appears the character began to be called the Mad Hatter in plays, with Mad capitalized or considered part of his name, right after Carroll's death. Also around that time, it appears done to cover both novels, the title of theatrical productions started to be called "Alice in Wonderland", to distinguish the combination of the stories from the first novel by itself. However, there is only a small sample size. Since the turn of the twentieth century, and again there is not a great deal of information about this, plays were presented that used the name Mad Hatter, and then in 1933 a fairly significant feature film again called Alice in Wonderland was released, starring Charlotte Henry along with W.C. Fields, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper and the man who later narrated the "Fractured Fairy Tales" segment of the Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon show. He was Edward Everett Horton, and he played the character called "The Mad Hatter". From then on it appears the die is cast. But I haven't pointed out one glaring exception to all of this evidence of a shift. In every publication and printed edition of the novel written by Lewis Carroll, beginning in 1865 and until today, January 4/5 2011, the character was never called Mad Hatter. Never. Now, back to Wikipedia and all this verifiability and neutrality stuff: we have 31 other articles about the characters in Carroll's works, and they have titles that are the same as what Carroll first named his character. In 2006, as shown above, one person proposed changing the title here to "Mad Hatter". The discussion there was none. No back and forth, no debate, the move was done. I see no consideration that they were changing the title of an article about a literary character into a title that was better suited for an article about the character in a 19xx Hollywood production. Because of that incorrect move, I have spent the past few days asserting, as I would firmly assert that the sky is normally blue and the earth orbits the sun, that this article is currently incorrectly titled. You can compare me to a wall, call me a wall, I simply think that when there is resistance to a plain fact, a person should continue to present the fundamentally accurate version of things to no end. Concluding, David you don't see a consensus but I have to submit to you that there won't ever be consensus until the initial point made, that this article is about the character in the novels by Lewis Carroll, is realized by all participants. The reviews from the nineteenth century which speak of a small "m" mad Hatter, and the plays of the early twentieth century and then the films since 1933 which use Mad Hatter, all come after the subject of this article and are discussed in a late section of it. It's as if we had in 2006 started calling an article about a species of oak tree "firewood". That is the issue that is specifically not being addressed by those who oppose this requested move, and when it comes to consensus until that is admitted those arguments should not be considered valid. They are the definition of beside the point. Sswonk (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of !votes

Support moving to Mad Hatter with little rationale, 2006, Robin Johnson
Support moving to Mad Hatter with no rationale, 2006, Philip Baird Shearer
Oppose moving from Mad Hatter asserting that it's "clearly preferred", 2010 Andrewa
Oppose moving from Mad Hatter asserting that it's "customary", 2010 Septentrionalis
Oppose moving from Mad Hatter asserting that it's "most commonly known", 2010 Gavia immer
Oppose moving from Mad Hatter asserting that it's "the most common name" and that "we are not supposed to prefer the academically 'correct'" 2010 -Born2cycle
Oppose moving from Mad Hatter asserting that it's "most commonly known" but referring to 20th-century films, 2010 Eureka Lott
Oppose moving from Mad Hatter asserting that it's "most commonly known", 2011 PowersT

Oppose moving to Mad Hatter noting that it's not Carroll's name, 2006, DavidWBrooks
Support moving from Mad Hatter arguing that an article about Carroll's character should have Carroll's name, 2010, Evertype
Support moving from Mad Hatter per Evertype's argument, 2010, J04n
Support moving from Mad Hatter per Evertype's argument and for consistency with other articles, 2010, Alison
Support moving from Mad Hatter with many arguments including accuracy and primacy of terminology, 2010, Sswonk
Support moving from Mad Hatter supporting Carroll's terminology, 2010, SarekOfVulcan
Support moving from Mad Hatter supporting Carroll's terminology, 2011, DL5MDA
Support moving from Mad Hatter arguing that a disclaimer in the lead is unsatisfactory, 2011, Curtis Clark

There is certainly no consensus to keep the page at Mad Hatter, and not one of those who have asserted that it's "most common" have addressed the substantive issues raised by Sswonk (more so than myself) or addressed the question of the preferences of Carrollian scholarship. Since Hatter and The Hatter and Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland have all been proposed, I suggest that the sensible thing to do is to choose one of those. The Hatter as noted by Sswonk is similar to The Sheep and is probably the best choice. 10:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has been at Mad Hatter since 2006. Regardless of your opinion of the quality of the older move discussion, four years of stability is a strong indicator of consensus and requires a contravening consensus to overturn. Until you can generate that consensus, which is clearly not in evidence here, the article should remain where it is. Powers ^T 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, from wikipedia practice and principle, not from any opinion about what title is correct: It takes consensus to move an article, not to keep it; in sports lingo, a tie goes to the home team. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even begin to understand this attitude. The WIkipedia is not some bizarre sort of "stabilized" shrine where mistakes must be perpetuated on foot of unsubstantiated assertions. Not one person who opposes the present move has given any substantive argument. It is clear that the 2006 move was made on the basis of no discussion whatsoever. The discussion we have had here has been much more substantial—particularly Sswonk's contributions, and nothing I've seen from the opposition has seriously addressed what is clearly a problem. The fact that an expert objects, and has offered not one but three different options for compromise. All the opposers have bothered to do is say "well, Common Name rules". And it does not. And the opposers have not PROVED that it is the most common name. The opposers haven't even tried. The opposers have just made assertions. I have indicated that in Carrollian scholarship, people are ALWAYS careful to respect Carroll's terminology—and for good reason. The opposers haven't even acknowledged this. A re-direct is sufficient for the teeming millions who will type in "Mad Hatter". But that is NOT the character's name. It may be a common nickname. But all the other Alice articles use the characters' names. I get NOTHING out of this whole discussion that shows that there is a shred of good faith on the part of a single one of the opposers. They have ignored the arguments, and done nothing but repeat the same thing over and over again. And now, David, you say that this stonewalling on their part means that the article is stuck where it is? No wonder experts disdain this encycolopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard (read, actually) versions of this "ignoring experts is a bad idea" point of view many times in the years of fiddling with wikipedia, and there's something to be said for it. Nonetheless, this is the way wikipedia works, for better or for worse, and it seems to have done pretty well as a result. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider the wisdom of getting off the fence and taking a stand, DavidWBrooks. Your studied neutrality doesn't help to achieve a compromise. And three compromise names have been offered. Are these to be ignored? When you say "This is the way Wikipedia works" all I can say here is that the kind of anti-academic anti-accuracy stonewalling that we have seen in those opposing a move is an indication of how the Wikipedia does NOT work. -- Evertype·✆ 23:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no genuine consensus to move the article in 2006. That process was clearly flawed. You (and the others who oppose moving the article now) have yet to offer anything but your assertion that "Mad Hatter" is "obviously" and "clearly" the "most common" name. Sswonk's arguments are actual arguments: The article is about a character whose author gave that character a name, and there is nothing inappropriate about naming the article about that character according to the same principles used to name the articles about all the other characters in the novel. You can show no "harm" for using Hatter or The Hatter or Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)—while we have argued that accepting the misnomer as the character's name does mislead the users of the encyclopaedia, and that needlessly. The default position of the Wikipedia is not "do nothing unless there is consensus". The default position is "be bold". Now we have heard complaints about Hatter (which some think might point to Hatmaking and Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) (which some think is too long, though they don't think the same about the other article names), but Sswonk and I have offered a third, accurate name for the article, The Hatter, which is just as transparent (and accurate) as The Sheep. Except that I cannot overwrite a re-direct because I do not have administrative powers I would be bold and move the article there now. I say again: There is no consensus to keep the article where it is. It must be moved, and we have in good faith offered three different places to move it. Kindly have some flexibility. Since the article is about Carroll's character, not Disney's, it should accordingly bear Carroll's name for him. -- Evertype·✆ 15:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal of the opposing application of WP:COMMONNAME

Summary rebuttal of the application of WP:COMMONNAME to perform the 2006 move, and now oppose this requested move:

COMMONNAME begins:

Articles are normally titled using the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.

The subject of this article is the Hatter, a character introduced by Lewis Carroll in his 1865 fantasy novel Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Later adaptations, mostly theatrical and cinematic productions, have added "Mad" to the character's name in their dramatis personæ, however those adaptation are secondary topics of this article.

COMMONNAME then states:

Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most common (see below).

Neither vulgar nor pedantic, The Hatter is the name used in recent reliable sources such as [4][5] when discussing this literary character. In the second source, "The Mad Hatter" is used to discuss the character in some of the adaptations and the name of a restaurant, for example. Again, these are not the primary topic of this article.

COMMONNAME then uses multiple paragraphs to describe cases in which common names "Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of a more elaborate, formal, or scientific alternative" are defined. This is the chief motivation for the 2006 move and current objection to this move request. It is not however applicable, as the examples then given at the policy all describe shortened names or layman's terms for longer or unlikely to be recognized names, not embellished names used in later adaptations of a published work.

COMMONNAME concludes:

The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate tidal wave.

Conjecture is the only basis used in arguments here that claim Mad Hatter is arguably more common. They have the feel of "I always thought it was the Mad Hatter" and "people are used to Mad Hatter". This is again the result of not focusing on the subject at hand, which is Carroll's character, not the secondary topics of characters found in later adaptations.

These arguments, while understandable, are misguided and in opposition to a consistent encyclopedic treatment of the characters in Carroll's Alice library. In agreement with the nominator, I conclude by asking that an administrator move this article to the consensus title The Hatter over the redirect and redirect the commonly used but inaccurate current title. Sswonk (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roger Crab

I am confused. In this article, you claim that the inspiration for this character is probably Theophilus Carter. Yet, in other articles on Wikipedia, this is claimed to be Roger Crab. He even has his own page! Kateab (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Chasers 2: The Great Escape

I've removed Channel Chasers 2: The Great Escape because it doesn't exist. This is the only source I could find for it and as you can see it's just an idea for an episode for a fake cartoon. 74.192.136.97 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another answer...

...but I don't have a citation, unfortunately, because it is proposed by someone I know: "They both have quills." Flipping Mackerel (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She adds: "They are both inky." Amazing. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 January 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatter → ? – If The Joker isn't suitable as an article title, I don't see how this one is. I don't want to rehash all the previous discussions above, but either Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) (WP:THE, but clunky) or Mad Hatter (WP:COMMONNAME, but arguably inaccurate) would be improvements to me. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). This is the best option that conforms with WP:THE, and matches the Alice article. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (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.

Tim Burton movie reference overlong

In the Popular culture references section the Tim Burton movie section is seriously overlong. That material belongs in the article about the movie if anywhere. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Hancher-1] Cite error: The named reference Hancher was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]