Talk:Beatrice (given name)

Merge?

I notice the article Beatrice and Beatrice (given name) both attempt to list people and things named Beatrice. I propose to combine the list on the DAB page, so we are not always double listing. There is already cross over with Beatrix, Beata DAB pages. Goldenrowley (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition,maybe also combine the lists on the Beata and Beata (disambiguation) pages.Goldenrowley (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Gr, in both cases the answer is a definitive "No". Dab pages are not articles, and (while there is almost inevitably overlap between an article on a particular given name and the page that disambiguates among the articles that each could reasonably have had that name as its title -- but for the other contenders), it is very rare for the two kinds of needs to be compatible.
  In fact, an old revision of what was then titled "Beatrice" embodied what you seem to be contemplating. I think our colleague was a bit conservative in the selection of pieces not included when creating the Dab -- primarily, as to the fic-chars, since the creators of fictional characters, with relatively few exceptions, go out of their way to make the reader, viewer, player, etc. familiar (even if not intimate) with the most notable characters, and de-emphasize their surnames; thus trying to find, by given name, the article on a particular character (when the name of the work is forgotten or, say, omitted when a reviewer compares a character, in passing, to Beatrice, Huck, or Alice) is both likely and sensible.
  In fact, even where the same people's articles are lk'd to in both a dab and the corresponding given-name article, the detail desired in the article is likely to amount to clutter if included in a Dab entry; likewise, the ordering considered suitable for the article (alpha by surname, grouped by occupation, or alpha within some other subdivision are popular choices) is likely to be counterproductive for Dab'g use, since the article should be sought by full name where it is known, and occupation (or at least occupation of primary notability) may not be apparent.
  I strongly recommend you give serious study to Dab and MoSDab if i've not made the distinction clear enough.
  --Jerzy•t 06:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  

Simplicius, Faustinus and Beatrix

What i've removed violates the prohibition on piping except where the target is a section (or other anchor) in the target. Better to IGNORE "links first" in a situation where "links first" makes no sense bcz it flies in the face of the fundamental principle of least astonishment. It's more important to have her name first, for clarity, than to have it be the link. And with the piping, the user who is thrown, first in the heading of the target page, two unexpected, unfamiliar, you-mean-Biggus-Dickus-is-a-real-person?-style names. They may smell a broken link, and be gone to Google without reading the third name.
--Jerzy•t 08:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters

The top-level structure of this section has been changed from one that admitted what a mixed bag the entries are (two in plays, two characters sharing a name within the same universe, and no two of the rest having any natural affinity. All our readers have a quick grasp of the distinctions among these: poem, play, short story, comic, game; if their Beatrice the one late in that thing that includes the Inferno, they're almost certainly best served by the name "Dante" and hindered rather than helped by the implicit invitation to dredge up guesses on when Dante or Shakespeare lived, and how long the Renaissance lasted. Or which medium Dante worked in. ("It's three books, so isn't it too long to be a poem? Doesn't it parody his enemies, and wouldn't that make it non-fiction?") Maybe those are dumb questions, but we don't expect our readers to answer smart ones in order to find their desired article.
The result is a forced, counter-intuitive subdivision that is likely to collapse when the next new article for it gets added, or located: All fic-chars are divided into four parts:

In Middle Ages through the Renaissance:

In plays:

Modern fiction:

Entertainment:

Two of which are based solely on time period (or does "fiction", when preceded by "modern" connote written prose?) "Entertainment" embraces not just the two entries placed under it, but unquestionably describes the main thrust works of six of the nine characters, and anyone who imagines that the "serious" play and the "pious" tales didn't seek to entertain (even if for the sake of supposedly higher matters) doesn't know anything about human psychology, so where should our user draw that line?
The bottom line is reality isn't made to be carved at the joints bcz it doesn't have joints. The most powerful heading we have is "other", and it's what saves us from trying to trap all the instances in equal-sized cases.
So -- especially since the formatting in any case needs correction to conform -- i'm putting it back as it was; there are probably some incremental improvements available, but if there's valuable new perspective to reorganize it around, it's not yet been found.
--Jerzy•t 09:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Beatrice

===

There are now two entries for this article. I don't know if it's written down, but i've been reverted for that, when there were better reasons for it than here, and at least as a rule, prohibiting redundant entries is a valuable discipline against holding disruptive ambitions for Dabs.
In this case, the article is explicitly about the poem, as its lead states. There is not really any character Beatrijs who could have an article at all: just a stick figure to play out the narrative of a pious parable about the redemptive love of the saints; there's nothing to be said about her. (Characters don't have their narrative divided into 7 years, and another 7 years.) And the poem is on the edge of notability as well: in order to judge the idea of moving it from See also to Titled expressive works, i searched

15 for poem Diederic OR Assenede Beatrijs -wikipedia

and

18 for poem Diederic OR Assenede Beatrice -wikipedia

In the second case, 17 hits were long lists that mention the name and the writer in unconnected contexts, and the real hit had the Dutch name as a heading, with three alternate titles (including "Beatrice") listed below (and IIRC, no further information on the work). (I wasn't keeping track, but several were clearly abt the poem or tale.) I'm removing the "character" entry, and moving the poem back to See also, since looking for it under Beatrice will be both rare and reflective of a rare version of the title.
--Jerzy•t 09:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)