Talk:C. C. H. Pounder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Mel -- I know using the periods/full stops in her name may be more traditional (and tidier in lists and such), but the actress uses "CCH" without stops as her professional name, as described in the first sentence. I think the article should be moved back, leaving the redirect at "C.C.H." -- what's your opinion? — Catherine\talk 17:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I would love it if wp would use the proper capitalization, punctuation, etc. (which I will here call 'orthography') in all situations. However, years ago, the result of this discussion was that wp would use a canonical (standard) orthography. This has some advantages (standardization of indexing and searching, ease of use by bots and user macros) and some disadvantages (like this case, where it is just plain wrong). Catherine is obviously correct: the redirection should be interchanged. But in the interests of peace and the success of wp, I would suggest that we leave it the way it is. I'm glad I don't have to vote on this! David Spector (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Can anyone suupply a photograph that actually shows what she looks like? I mean, the current photo's very atmospheric and all that, but it could be of anyone. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In the current photo, whos the guy on the right? -- (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


Should this article mention her fan nickname, "Quarter Pounder with CCH?" NEMT 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Her name[edit]

How is she addressed in casual conversation? CCH? Carol? NorthernThunder 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pounder Rito Revolto 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

She is addressed casually by colleagues as CC, and by Family as carol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Has she explained why she styles herself like that ? -- Beardo (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


Stating that CCH Pounder becomes police captain late in season 5 of The Shield is a pretty big spoiler, and has kind of ruined the surprise for me. I've edited it out. 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit request from Dysantic, 6 April 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please revert this article to perhaps the "15:06, 2 April 2010" backup. It has been semi-protected, yet it is still fairly vandalized. A diff between the two will highlight the vandalism.

Thank you. Dysantic (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done thank you for pointing that out. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorate[edit]

On October 15th, 2011, C.C.H. Pounder received an Honorary Doctorate from Ithaca College. Not sure where to include this in her page, but it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

C. C. H. PounderCCH Pounder – I am gobsmacked that this request is even necessary, but talk page discussions (here) are at a standstill. I made a move, pursuant to an OTRS request, and after confirming that the proposed name was in compliance with our guideline WP:SPACEINITS. I am aware that we generally prefer full stops in name, but there is an exception in case An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person. I checked the first 30 entries in a Google search and only one (other than the Wikipedia entry) used C.C.H. Pounder. The rest used CCH Pounder. I also note that her name appears in 123 articles as CCH Pounder:

I won't list all 123

Only one of those articles:

uses C.C.H. Pounder.

I made the move, @Robsinden: reverted without initiating a discussion, and has declined to revert the error, despite extensive explanation.

I also request a trout for Robsinden for wasting your time S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment You say that only one article uses "C.C.H. Pounder", but that is the unspaced version. The article's current title and the MOS-recommended style uses spaces between initials, i.e. "C. C. H. Pounder". Additionally, more than just Birdland (TV series) uses the unspaced "C.C.H. Pounder" (such as L.A. Law, The Practice, Benny & Joon. etc.). How did you conclude that it was only the Birdland article that did? — Crumpled Fire contribs 06:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
A simple check of "What links here" shows that the nom is incorrect in this claim. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Crumpled Fire: I did a search of articles for "CCH Pounder" which will return that phrase, as well as "C.C.H. Pounder". That search returned 124 items of which only Birdland produced the second option. Including the spaces does provide hits for "C. C. H. Pounder".--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Best to stick with our house style for this unless there is a source where she discusses that this is her preferred style. Usage of of the non-spaced, non-punctuated version, although extremely common, is not ubiquitous, see these from reputable sources such as Chicago Tribune, NPR and the BFI, who are also all clearly using their house style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, in addition to the sources I mention, I'm 100% convinced that if you look at the end credits of films she has appeared in, you will see a mixture of styles used to render the name. I believe Sight & Sound duplicate credits directly, see this one as an example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Rob Sinden that we should follow house style, which is why I proposed the move. The "house style" is a full name, but provides exceptions in the case that initials are common. It then discusses whether,in those cases, to use full stops or not. It specifically identifies examples such as "CC Sabathia". That style is appropriate if used by "overwhelming majority of reliable sources". Rob Sinden concedes it is "extremely common", but then claims it is "not ubiquitous". However, "ubiquitous" is nowhere mentioned in the guideline. Which means, of course, that Rob Sinden's argument is essentially a "support" even those the initial word was "oppose".--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You're WP:WIKILAWYERING now. It's clear that our "house style" is to include a full stop and a space after each initial, unless we make the exceptions as stated the guideline WP:SPACEINITS. I !vote not to make the exception. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not appreciate the name-calling. Please stick to policy based arguments, rather than mudslinging. House style is decribed by the guideline, which prefers full names, while allowing for initials when those are common. In the case of initials, it prefers full stops, except when the lack of full stops is the "overwhelming majority". In other words, our guideline supports my move. Your opposition is based upon your misreading of the guideline, inventing standards such as "ubiquitous". I vote to follow the guideline, not your misreading of it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You don't think that trying to turn my "Oppose" to a "Support" on what I may or may not mean by "house style" is Wikilawyering? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that it would be good for other readers to read the guideline and see how it applies. I think of Wikilawyering as trying to reach a conclusion opposite to the sensible one by torturing what sometimes is inartful language of the guideline or policy. That isn't happening in this case. Most places call her CCH Pounder. Our guideline states this is acceptable. Let's do the right thing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
A reminder that WP:CONSISTENCY for article titles is policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Robsinden. People's intials are almost always put with periods per our house style. It also aids WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, since without the periods it does not look like a person's name.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I get that this is going against the wishes of the subject, and that may be the consensus, but I cannot let arguments like this go unchallenged. Of course "People's intials are almost always put with periods" for the simple fact that most people who use initials in their name use periods. Very few do not, and per policy, if An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person then we follow that usage.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: but what are you calling a reliable source for this purpose? As Rob Sinden already mentioned above, the Chicago Tribune has used periods before. A search across the NY Times[1] shows that they most often use either "C. C. H." or "C C H" in their articles. It's true that a raw Google search shows "CCH" more than other forms, but that's mainly bringing back IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes type results, which aren't as high quality as the NY Times. I will concede that this is a borderline case. I think there is a predominance for the proposed form, but I personally don't think it reaches the level of "overwhelming majority", particularly given that not everyone will recognise the name anyway. When I first saw this I though maybe it was some kind of hamburger, like a Quarter Pounder or whatever. It's not obvious it's a person unless you initialise it.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY and MOS:BIO, unless and until such time as we have a reliable source (e.g. a mainstream-published interview) with her stating explicitly a preference for the exact formulation "CCH Pounder". We have the equivalent for k.d. lang (not "K. D. Lang"), but the opposite of the commonly expected case was true for E. E. Cummings (not "e.e. cummings" despite his publisher loving his broken-typewriter thing as marketing gimmick). We can make exceptions but only when there's a really good reason to do so. The fact that the general RS are not consistent in treatment of Pounder's name rules out any application of "the Deadmau5 rule" (i.e., use a divergent stylization if nearly all RS use it). The very first page of Google Books results turns up plenty of cases of "C. C. H. Pounder" (or "C.C.H. Pounder", depending on house style of the publication in question) [2]. Similarly, if you do a search, you can find cases of "JRR Tolkien". It doesn't mean a thing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: You indicated that you would be persuaded by a reliable source expressing a preference. This is an article written by her using that style thoughts unstrung.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
"Using that style" isn't the same thing and stating a clear preference for it. We have no idea if Huffington Post's editorial staff formatted it that way themselves; such publications impose their own house style on submissions. And a habit and a strong preference are not the same thing, anyway. I habitually write my initials as "S.McC.", but if a publisher changed it to "S. M." I would not object because I really don't care. We have no evidence that Pounder cares, and clear evidence that RS usage referring to her is mixed, so we have no rationale for a page move against MoS style.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on C. C. H. Pounder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)