Talk:Mrs. Claus

“They don’t have anything to do with each other?”

You’re the boss, Apple Sauce, and it doesn’t matter much to me personally, but the reason I had made a link to the Snow Queen’s article was because the Snow Queen is a personification of snow as a woman and the Snow Maiden a personification of snow as a girl or maid. So because Mrs. Santa Claus is not only Mrs. Claus, the wife of Santa Claus, but is also Mother Christmas, a symbol or personification of Christmas as a woman, she would therefore have a relationship to the Snow Queen similar to the one Kitty Claus would have to the Snow Maiden. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 10:50, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

But the Snow Maiden and Kitty are only "related" to each other because (in some stories) they're both the daughter of Santa. Their relations to snow or Christmas have nothing to do with it? (...and I'm not sure why "Mother Christmas" = "Queen of cold who kidnaps children?" You've lost me there...) ;-)Cebr1979 (talk) 10:55, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

In that last sense, you’re right they are quite dissimilar, but I saw them as analogous adult women who are both personifications of (different) aspects of wintertime. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 11:02, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

See, I'd see one a female personification of Christmas and the other as a personification of snow... (Which, if living in Hawai'i or Australia, are not one and the same, right?)Cebr1979 (talk) 11:05, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Right. 🙂   —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 11:09, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Real Name?

Ok but... aren't Betty/Bessie/Dorothy derivatives of the original character? It's just so bizarre to have so many names in the infobox when there's only one creator. I mean, sure: James Rees probably never called her "Kristina Kringle" or "Mary Christmas" (or maybe he did, I don't know and I don't really care) but, those are the names she's sorta just come to have and for all we know the person who created those names is the same person who created Snow White OR they're two different people. Who cares? Time has given Mrs. Claus those names so... great. "Time" did not name her Betty, Bessie, or Dorothy and neither did James Rees so... now our infobox is lying.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:48, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

If this character were to become PD tomorrow... Would we create a new page for her or would we add "Jingle Belle" to the "Real Name" field of the infobox at the Santa Claus' Daughter/Kitty Claus page and say that Everett Elliott and F. W. Hardcastle created both? That'd be sort of a slap in the face to Paul Dini, no?Cebr1979 (talk) 08:10, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

The sole parameter of the Mrs. Claus/Mother Christmas character is that she is Santa Claus’/Father Christmas’ wife, so this allows authors to go to town creating whatever varying names and background stories they want. In the 1500s, they were just called “Yule and Yule’s wife,” and James Rees called them “Santa Claus and his wife.” Old Betty/Dame Dorothy from the 1870s mummers plays may or may not have been inspired by Yule’s wife, but it is hardly likely she was at all inspired by American author Rees’ story. That the Ladies’ Home Journal stories from the 1920s named her Bessie may or may not have been a nod to the 19th‐century mummers plays, but how could we know for sure? The situation is so tangled that it makes more sense to me to remove Rees as creator in the info‐box, especially since the concept of Yule’s wife/Mother Christmas already existed, than to remove all the real names given by various authors in multiple works. Agree? (Or what about revising the info‐box rule? Perhaps we can just specify that later names were not given by the character’s original creator.) —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 10:34, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

This is completely going over your head and you're totally missing the point. The sole parameter of her could be nothing more than she has two arms. I don't care. James Rees did not create Dame Dorothy so the infobox can't say that he did and no, we are not revising the infobox rule. Dorothy has a different name (and creator) and, thus, requires a different page. I've told you this numerous times and, whether you like it or not (and clearly you don't), it's not changing. That's how it is and that's how it's staying.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:26, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

(To explain a bit differently:) Let's forget about James Rees. As of now, he doesn't exist and never has. That doesn't change the fact that "Dame Dorothy" was still created by someone. "Bessie" was still created by someone else and, if I were to publish a book tomorrow with the personification of Christmas having a wife named "Poopsie McTurhead," I would be the creator of that. The fact all three had the same husband in their respective stories, means nothing! One person created Dorothy, another created Bessie, and yet another created Poopsie so all three require different pages (or, at the very least, a mention in the "Notes and/or Appearances" section with their respective creators also named there but, not in the infobox). That was the whole point behind my post about Paul Dini.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:49, January 1, 2017 (UTC)

Yule and Santa should have separate pages too. That conversation is right here.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:16, January 1, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness! (How have I never thought of this before?) The Counts Dracula and Orlok are perfect examples of this always being the way even before I ever showed up here!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:50, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

(In regards to the infobox...) Another page I should have thought of.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:05, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be discussing at least two different things at the same time. One is about which real names can and cannot be used in an info‐box, and the other is about whether different versions of the same character are distinct enough to warrant separate articles. If you feel that character names must not be in the info‐box if they were bestowed on the character by an author other than the one listed as the original creator, I’ll go along with that. But you have also located examples of different versions of the same character having separate articles (like Dracula and Orlok, Prince Charming and Florimond) as well as examples of different versions lumped together in the same article (like Santa Claus, the Snow Maiden), so my impression is that both are fine: They can have separate articles or share an article, depending on the editors’ time, motivation and inclination. Are you saying however that creating separate articles is now obligatory? If not, then I’m still not sure what point you feel I’m missing. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 05:50, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying: If you don't want to create separate articles... fine! I'm not going to tell you how to spend your time. However, if you don't want to create separate articles but, still want those other names mentioned... mention them in either the "Notes" or "Appearances" sections only and not in the infobox.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:15, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

...and I don't recall ever using the Snow Maiden as an example? When I was done with that page, the infobox listed no creator (and only different spellings of her name) with separate paragraphs explaining her (known to me at the time) appearances. She has no creator, she's another Snow White. If someone publishes a "Snow Maiden" story and names her "Barb," then "Barb" would either be mentioned in the "Notes" section or get her own page. The name "Barb" would not go in the infobox. As for Santa, I have directed you to his talk page where it does say those pages should be split. Anything in the infobox when I was done with the page, were names given to him by "time." Anything else there now was added by you.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:29, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

This is a great example of a single (and the original) creator (as far I know anyhow, I'm merely trusting the page creator here) giving a character multiple names. Of course, given the circumstance, both names should be in the infobox!Cebr1979 (talk) 07:16, January 3, 2017 (UTC)