(no subject)

[arcanetrivia]

I love when fandom knowledge applies to work. (There have been a couple of similar incidents in the past when discussing exactly how to attribute authorship of Beedle the Bard.) Had this exchange today on a cataloging list I subscribe to:

On 1/28/2015 4:40 PM [redacted] wrote:

> This can't be right! The (subject) authority entry
>
> 400 0 Doctor Who (Fictitious character)
> controls to
> 100 0 Doctor (Fictitious character)*
>
> If you read all the 670s in the record, you find that "The Doctor" is
> his alias and that his true name is the answer to the most dangerous
> question in the universe. But for those of us living in _this_
> universe, what value is there in such an entry? Do devotees of this
> series really refer to him consistently as just "The Doctor" (no
> nonfiling characters, please)?

Actually, yes, and that is the way the character is currently named in the show credits. Pickier fans will insist it's the most (or only) correct way to name him, though there were times in the show history the character was called "Doctor Who" in the credits, and usage has been inconsistent among media and even cast members. There are some running jokes about it within the show, but in dialogue it's fairly consistent that his name is simply "the Doctor".

See http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor#.22Doctor_Who.22 for some general background and http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_%22Doctor_Who%3F%22_running_joke if you really want to know details about when the phrase "Doctor Who" comes up as distinct from "the Doctor".

--------------

* This means that if you search for "Doctor Who" in the subject file you will be forwarded to "Doctor"; the initial article is dropped. Also, I don't know why he's referring to this as a "(subject) authority", because the field numbers 400 and 100 (instead of 450 and 150) are for personal name entries. (Maybe he's objecting to the conversion of subject authorities for fictional characters into name authorities that's happening with RDA.)

If you are interested in the full glory of the LC subject authority record, which also includes see-from aliases for John Smith and Theta Sigma, lists his "Field of activity" as "Time travel", where I think one might normally expect something more mundane like "Biology", and includes recent citations from the BBC website and TARDIS Wikia, see here.

Comments

[sir_guinglain]

Excellent - I approve. Even in the mid-sixties when the Doctor was referred to as 'Dr Who' on the caption roller credits, new writers were cautioned never to refer to the Doctor as 'Doctor Who' in dialogue, as that was 'just the title of the show'.

[arcanetrivia]

The OP has received several replies so far (including mine), all amounting to "Yes, we the show does, and yes, we do." I could understand simple confusion on the topic if one isn't into DW, but I was amused by the supercilious "This can't be right! This is so vague as to be useless! Do people really do this?" tone when he admits in the next breath he's not quite in the right position to know.

[sir_guinglain]

This is the kind of attitude I've come across from well-meaning bibliographic and copy editing people in the past, so I can believe it!

[arcanetrivia]

Take care; you are speaking to another well-meaning bibliographic editing person ;)

Someone or someones out there in authority-file-maintenance-land really spent loving care on that authority record, though. (http://lccn.loc.gov/no2014068478 if you want to know) It also includes see-froms for John Smith and Theta Sigma, and has source data citations from the BBC Doctor Who site and TARDIS Wikia!

[sir_guinglain]

I've been such a bibliographic person myself too... ;)