Talk:James Martin Hayes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 21 June 2017[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 DrStrauss talk 09:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


James Martin Hayes → James Hayes (archbishop of Halifax) – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BISHOP. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear my thoughts on each of the specific cases at this point, leaning oppose on the ones that have a middle name associated with them, because those very well could be natural disambiguations, which I generally prefer that to parenthetical. Thomas Collins (bishop) is problematic because Thomas Christopher Collins is certainly more notable than he is. It could use discussion from additional parties as part of an RM, which is why I opposed the technical request. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Putting aside James Martin Hayes and Thomas Christopher Collins, would that mean that you would support moving James Hayes (bishop), Richard Smith (bishop), and Thomas Collins (bishop) given that each of those titles are ambiguous (there being more than one bishop by those names, which is the case irrespective of whether or not the other bishops' articles includes middle names in their titles)? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And with respect to the other two, WP:NATURAL, which you cite, applies only to "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". Looking at Thomas Christopher Collins, for example, a quick glance through the first several pages of Google search results for the terms Thomas Collins bishop OR archbishop demonstrate that the inclusion of the middle name is not "common". While you may "generally prefer" natural disambiguation, that cannot override the broader consensus behind the existing guideline. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: If you support moving Thomas Collins (bishop), why would you not support Richard Smith (bishop) as well? Richard Smith (bishop) does not appear to be significantly more notable than Richard William Smith. Moreover, where in the policy on article titles does it suggest that notability should be a factor in cases where there is no primary topic? (To be clear, I do not intend that as a rhetorical question.) Between this and your self-described 'general preference' for natural disambiguation, it would seem that you have your own set of criteria apart from that established by a wider consensus and codified in our policies and guidelines.
Regarding your link to Collins' biography on the archdiocesan website, you will find that is common for the full name to be included in diocesan biographies even when that is not the commonly used name. And even were that not the case, one usage does not establish that the name is "commonly" used, as required by WP:NATURAL. One way to ascertain the way his name is commonly used would be to have a look through the Google search results linked above. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are clearly going to disagree on this, but here is my general view: the fact that middle names are in common use for bishops across diocesan websites of many bishops, not just this one, suggest that it is a valid natural disambiguation under our article title policy because it is commonly used in official biographies to the point where it is well known. NATURAL does not require that it be the most commonly used term, simply that it is common and not obscure, which it certainly isn't for most bishops.
Re: Collins, I didn't say notability in the oppose above, but significance, which is in fact part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and a cardinal certainly has more long-term significance than a non-cardinal. Primary topic also mentions notability as well as part of the same prong.TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I should have said significance rather than notability. And I'm aware that it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is exactly part of the point I was making. This is not an situation in which we have a primary topic, so apart from provisions solely related to situations in which there is a primary topic, where in the policy on article titles does it suggest that significance should be a factor in cases where there is no primary topic? (As before, I don't intend the question to be rhetorical.)
Additionally, I should have noted previously that even the archdiocesan biography taken alone doesn't seem to suggest that James Martin Hayes would be a commonly used name. The middle name is included there for the same reason as a bunch of other largely trivial biographical information (e.g., birth date, date of each of his three ordinations) – it's a formal biography. It's included for the same reason why Wikipedia would include the middle name of someone who never, never uses their middle name in the lede (and, for that matter, why Collins' middle name will be included in the lede irrespective of the outcome of this process). But notably, the archdiocesan biography uses the following as its title: "His Eminence Thomas Cardinal Collins". They chose to include his formal title but not his middle name. You can't suggest that is a coincidence. To try to use this biography to establish that James Martin Hayes is "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called" makes as much sense as citing his birth certificate.
Finally, with respect to your assertion that, "NATURAL does not require that it be the most commonly used term, simply that it is common and not obscure", "common" and "not obscure" are incredibly different. If, as you suggest, this meets the criterion of "common" and said criterion is the same thing as "not obscure", I would struggle to think of someone whose full name could not be considered "not obscure". Such an interpretation is certainly not in line with the intent of the writers of WP:NATURAL as, if it were, the same result could have been accomplished by omitting the "common" criterion. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CBC, Vatican, Toronto Star, New York Times on Collins. Its certainly common enough to be a valid natural disambiguation. Hayes is more complex since it is obits, but there are enough of them and from sources such as CCCB that I think it is enough to be common under NATURAL. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Martin_Hayes&oldid=1205215948"