alias historical_reference_connection -> historical_name_connection

BUR #17355 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create alias historical_reference_connection -> historical_name_connection

Currently, I see an issue with historical reference connection: its name is confusing. As seen when the tag was first being populated (forum #232120), I'm not the only one who thinks of references to historical events when I see the word "reference", instead of what the tag is supposed to be used for, which is as a historically based name connection tag. There are examples of the tag being misused because of its name, seen here:

post #6269430 (historical connection between Okita Souji and the Shinsengumi, but no other Okita to be seen)
post #6089657 (historical connection as both Hizamaru and Ushiwakamaru were Genji, but they are not based on the same person)
post #6098376 (historical connection to the owner of the horse's daughter, and comment #2302450 called this tagging choice into question)
post #5415350 (historical connection as Higekiri was the sword used by Watanabe no Tsuna to cut off the arm of Ibaraki Douji)

I think it's fine that the tag is meant to be referring to two characters based on the same historical entity (hence, they reference it), but the tag name is still bound to be used inappropriately, and as we can see, it has been. I think the name of the tag should be reworked. Personally, I'm going with "historical_name_connection" to make the subset idea more obvious. An expansion of the wiki would be nice too, to more closely follow the guidelines of name connection (i.e. not just pairings), but if that's outside the scope of the tag then so be it. I would have preferred a full rename, because someone who types in "historical_reference" is still going to be linked to this tag when instead they should be using historical connection, so if there are any solutions to that please present them. If I'm misunderstanding something, please point that out too.

Any related BURs should also go in this thread.

Linking the other two times the tag has been discussed since its creation: topic #23521 and topic #23721.

Also, to add to the potential messiness of things, you also have the question of "in how far does 'based on' go?", with the case of Civilization, with post #2605025 being the only potentially valid example of this tag for the series, but also showing how messy it can be. Boudica in Civilization is supposed to be based on the historical Boudica, so Fate's Boudica cosplaying as her is at bare minimum name connection, but does Civilization's Boudica fit the spirit of historical Boudica enough to count as the same person, or is she derivative enough for the post to count for this tag?

Another thing to mention: its use case is awfully limited compared to name connection, which might also be part of why it's been misused. Whether its usage should be expanded or not is up for debate, but expanding it would make it come awfully close to historical connection, so that should be kept in mind.

Yeah... I've got to be honest... I've had trouble clamping down on misuse of the tag when historical_connection would suffice so this would definitely be worth trying in order to prevent this sort of thing.

The bulk update request #17355 (forum #243696) has been approved by @nonamethanks.