Among many other examples, if a reader were looking for the person commonly known as [[Robert Harley]], on Wikipedia they'll be pleased to find them under the ridiculous title of [[Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer]], a name not used except in the context of giving his title. Now, while the said Robert Harley may indeed have been 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, it's nonetheless a plain fact that his name was Robert Harley, and it is by this name that he is and was commonly called.
This seems to be a proliferation on Wikipedia, and indeed there is a proposal, currently with a wide degree of support, being discussed on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage]] to make this official Wikipedia policy: where someone holds a title, it must be part of their name, without exceptions. At least for British titles; perhaps other countries' titles will be dealt with more vaguely.
I'd argue that simply using peoples' names, except where their titles are commonly used or necessary for disambiguation purposes, is best in keeping with our standard "use the most common name in English" naming policy, and far preferable to the one currently being proposed.
In either case, those of you with an opinion might wnat to head on over to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage]] and vote.
-Mark
This is a difficult problem. If they deserve an article they have probably done something under their name (without title), but we have a faction that honestly believes that all members of the titled British nobility deserve an article based on their title. Long ago someone said, "Well, they appear in Who's Who"
Fred
From: Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:05:31 -0600 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] the proliferation of ridiculous titular naming schemes
Among many other examples, if a reader were looking for the person commonly known as [[Robert Harley]], on Wikipedia they'll be pleased to find them under the ridiculous title of [[Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer]], a name not used except in the context of giving his title. Now, while the said Robert Harley may indeed have been 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, it's nonetheless a plain fact that his name was Robert Harley, and it is by this name that he is and was commonly called.
This seems to be a proliferation on Wikipedia, and indeed there is a proposal, currently with a wide degree of support, being discussed on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage]] to make this official Wikipedia policy: where someone holds a title, it must be part of their name, without exceptions. At least for British titles; perhaps other countries' titles will be dealt with more vaguely.
I'd argue that simply using peoples' names, except where their titles are commonly used or necessary for disambiguation purposes, is best in keeping with our standard "use the most common name in English" naming policy, and far preferable to the one currently being proposed.
In either case, those of you with an opinion might wnat to head on over to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage]] and vote.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is a difficult problem. If they deserve an article they have probably done something under their name (without title), but we have a faction that honestly believes that all members of the titled British nobility deserve an article based on their title. Long ago someone said, "Well, they appear in Who's Who"
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the main reason people seem to be arguing for the titular naming scheme is that some people were known primarily by their titles ("The 1st Duke of ...") rather than by their names, some were known by either, and the whole mess is best sorted out by just using "Firstname Lastname, Their Title" consistently.
While I can see the reason people might want a standardized naming scheme like that, I think it detracts from readability and makes some articles just ridiculous. The article on [[Bertrand Russell], for example, should very clearly appear there, *not* at [[Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl of Russell]], a name by which he was rarely if ever known, and a name he did not use when signing his writings. But this is exactly what the current proposal would mandate. Though I personally plan to keep [[Bertrand Russell]] at that location, regardless of the outcome of the current vote, as I don't recognize the authority of Wikiproject:peerage over such general-purpose articles as [[Bertrand Russell]].
-Mark