Thread:Hawku/@comment-42712-20200120201741/@comment-13447-20200120225436

Hi guys. Good points. Yeah, we should avoid the usage "character" as the disam. I think the titling should be as close to "in-universe-ing" as possible. (Unless the character is an actual character in-universe, like in a holo-novel or something)

Yes, definitely, if the rank is in flow, then it should be something else. I may update our naming/disam guidelines to make them more definitive. Here are some disam uses I've come across here and Memory Beta/Alpha:
 * Name (Lieutenant) <-- Rank based
 * Name (USS Enterprise) <-- Ship based
 * Name (Starfleet officer) <-- Organizational
 * Name (Donatu V) <-- Planet based
 * Name (24th century) <--Century based

I think there should be a hierarchy of usage based on what makes the most sense per case, starting with the smallest scale (Rank) to largest (24th century), or whatever makes the most sense for that character. Maybe it also depends on what available information there is on that character.

Some other disams that might come before rank, that I came across:
 * Name (scientist) <-- Profession based if not in an organization
 * Name (mirror) <-- Universe based
 * Name (Klingon) <-- Species based

Maybe using "actor" or "director" to give a real world article disambiguation would work. I couldn't find any real world article examples though. But your point, Kirby, about said prominence makes sense. Perhaps she would get her name without a disam in this case, and the disambiguation article would be:
 * Jennifer Cole (disambiguation)