Jump to content

Talk:MT Carney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:M. T. Carney)


Comments

[edit]

I am working on this page and will be adding additional material as I gather appropriate sources.Wintertanager (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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: Move. The rough consensus seems to be that given the lack of consistency in outside sources we should go with Wikipedia's own style conventions. Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MT Carney → M. T. Carney – Reasons given below Herostratus (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a first name of"MT". It would be "Mt" I guess. But that is not pronounceable. I assume it's her initials. In which case, we generally give initials like this: "M. T.". Other publications use other styles. As a rule, entities are not allowed to intrude their idiosyncratic name designs into Wikipedia articles, which is why we have Macy's rather than Macy*s, and so forth.

We do allow for this in certain cases -- k. d. lang for instance. eBay. But Lang and Ebay are well-known and have lots of sources, and most of these use the idiosyncratic form. Carney, not so much. She's just not famous enough to get the special treatment. Let's look at sources. Going down the list generated by Google, and ignoring results showing material created by Ms Carney herself or some entity closely associated with her (Facebook page etc.), Wikipedia itself, and duplicates, I get:

  1. New York Times uses "M T Carney" (spaces but no dots -- that may be their house stye for initials in names generally, as is done in Britain sometimes)
  2. Dealine Hollywood (whatever that is) has "MT Carney".
  3. The Hollywood Reporter (whatever that is) has "M. T. Carney"
NOTE: The majority of The Hollywood Rerporter's articles list her as MT Carney (i.e.; http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-marketing-exit-memo-mt-carney-279784)Wintertanager (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Advertising Age uses "M. T. Carney"/
  2. The Wrap (whatever that is) has "MT Carney". (It appears that that article is basically a Disney press release, and includes the instructions (from Disney, if I'm understanding this right) "[H]er name is MT Carney (Hollywood copywriters: no periods in the MT)". We don't have to follow Disney's wishes, but The Wrap does do so in the small lead-in that they wrote themselves.)
  3. Bloomberg has "MT Carney"
  4. The LA Times (actually a Times-published blog) uses "MT Carney"
  5. Now [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/disney-names-a-new-marketing-chief/ here's The NY Times again, this time with "MT Carney". (FWIW it's a Times blog, the earlier cite was from the actual paper.)
  6. Mediapost (whatever that is - may be a glorified blog) has "MT Carney".
  7. Vulture (whatever that is, but seems to be associated with New York Magazine) gives us "Marie 'MT' Carney" -- the "MT" is enclosed in double quotes.
  8. [zoominfo] has "M. T. Carney" FWIW, its a database not a news site so maybe not worth much. (EDIT Herostratus (talk): Because of the robotic ignorance of the filterbot, I am not permitted to post the url even on a talk page, which is ridiculous.)
  9. Movie City News (whatever that is) has "M. T. Carney" in the title, but "MT Carney" in the body, but then use. "M. T." when (purportedly) addressing her directly.
  10. Variety uses "MT Carney"
  11. The John Carter Files (not sure what that is -- looks like an independent fan site, but not sure) has "MT Carter".
  12. Fast Company has "MT Carney".

After this we're pretty much getting into the weeds. Looks kind of all over the place. I get 10-4 for "MT Carney" over "M. T. Carney" -- that's not counting the NYTimes use of "M T Carney" and Vulture which puts the "MT" in quotes, and counting Movie City News on both sides. Looking at the more publications I've actually heard of and ignoring the rest, I get:

It's clear that "MT" has it over "M.T.". Enough to trump our normal style? Not in my opinion. We should hold the line a lot more strictly with marginally notable people, in my opinion. Note that nowhere is there a full profile article about her, even a short one, for instance. If she gets a lot more famous we can revisit the sources then. Herostratus (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources in the article, in order (not counting those already noted), I get

  • Adweek has "M.T. Carney" -- dots, but no space after the "M" (probably their house style)
  • The Telegraph has "MT Carney".
  • Now the Los Angeles Times -- the main paper this time, not one of their blogs -- has "M.T. Carney". Again the dots with no space after the "M". But then the next Times article uses ""MT Carney". Make up your mind LA Times.
  • Huffington Post has ""MT Carney". Herostratus (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to respectfully weigh in on this issue. Before I begin I want to add the caveat that while I do feel strongly about this issue, I am very respectful of the wikipedia process and to the attention and thought that has been put into this issue thus far. That said, I strongly disagree on a number of levels. Firstly, the argument that she's just 'not famous enough' to be listed as she herself chooses to publicly present her name does not hold water. I don't think there is any written wikipedia policy for 'degree of fame' as a criteria for determining naming policy. She is certainly a prominent public person worthy of wikipedia coverage, we know that simply due to the number of very reputable sources we can cite with articles about her and her endeavors. Fame is thus a moot point. Secondly, how a prominent female executive chooses to present her name to the public is very, very important. She goes by MT Carney - why isn't it correct to represent that as accurately as possible? Is it a bit odd? Perhaps, but again that is how she chooses to present her identity, and that choice is hers. Prominent publications respect that - furthermore the public knows her as that. There is therefore no reason I can think of to arbitrarily present her name as M.T. Carney - that's not her name! It does make sense to me to redirect M.T. Carney to MT Carney, but not to move the entire entry to an incorrect title simply to adhere to a naming convention. This idea that 'she is not a rapper' really does undermine and disrespect the ideology behind her choice in her public name. She has a right to that choice, particularly as a living person. This is BLP, and I believe as such we are obligated to protect her choices. Lastly, I have removed the naming explanation provided in the page summary because that is the last place we need an anecdotal explanation regarding punctuation. That is a place for a pithy statement about who she is, nothing more - otherwise it becomes BLP:UNDUE... Feel free to weigh in - I would however like to request that we elevate this discussion if someone still feels strongly about moving the page, before a move is made. Wintertanager (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a reference in header to a Carney Peak in Montana for which no Wikipedia page exists, placed by an anonymous user.Wintertanager (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to address the 'sources you've actually heard of' portion of your analysis. I don't think it is fair to refer to The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, The Wrap, and so forth as "whatever that is". I very much understand if you haven't heard of these publications, but in the context of this BLP they are highly relevant, reputable and reliable. THR, Deadline, The Wrap, etc. are the leading publications of the entertainment industry.Wintertanager (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Still support - and stand by above comment (1) she's not a rapper so WP:STAGENAME doesn't apply, and (2) Being cited a lot in sources with random MOS isn't a reason to depart from normal en.wp style. And there is no source for "publicly known as MT Carney" in article nor "as she herself chooses to publicly present her name" in block of text inserted into RM nomination above. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first source in the article, the New York Times, clearly states "Ms. Carney goes by punctuation-free initials that stand for Marie Therese."Wintertanager (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to weigh in on 'she's not a rapper so WP:STAGENAME doesn't apply. Here's what I find in WP:MOS: 'Pseudonyms, stage names and common names: For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym.' That is precisely what we are doing here - her choice to stylizing her name into gender neutral initials is a pseudonym, right? Our job is to represent and source this as accurately as possible.Wintertanager (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see wikt:pseudonym, as per examples in WP:STAGENAME "H.G. Wells" "G.W. Bush" are not pseudonyms, these are simply initials. as per example MC Hammer, not "Stanley Burrell" is a pseudonym. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, let's go with "the name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their 'real' name" as stated in WP:STAGENAMEWintertanager (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic No - She goes by 'MT Carney'. That is her choice, and how she should be listed. That is also how she is known professionally, as MT Carney, not M.T. Carney. Strongly disagree with this proposal - please do not forget that this is BLP we are dealing with here; this is not just any article, it deals with a living person for whom identity and name are no trifling matter. Further notes in comments above. Wintertanager (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but "M. T.." is not pejorative or harmful to her or anything. It comes down, I think, to sources. It looks like there is somewhat of a preponderance of "MT" over "M. T." both in total numbers and among highly-respected sources, and that's probably your best argument. My opinion is that the preponderance is not high enough to trump our default house style, but it's reasonable to argue that it is. Herostratus (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I respectfully disagree with you on this point. It is harmful to her to describe her as M.T. Carney rather than MT Carney. That a top female executive feels external pressure to create a gender-neutral version of her name is very understandable. By stylizing her public presentation of that gender neutral name, she is empowering her own identity by asserting her own control over it - her unique stamp. She has a right to do that; were we to represent her name with initials we would be preventing the expression of that right.Wintertanager (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, as I noted above, highly respected sources need to include The Hollywood Reporter, The Wrap, Deadline, etc. These are the leading publications of the entertainment industry. Also noted above that THR uses MT Carney in the majority of their articles. I respectfully submit there is more than somewhat of a preponderance, certainly ample enough to warrant "the name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title" WP:STAGENAME. Wintertanager (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a reasonable claim. Against that you've got Advertising Age, a venerable and respected publication, going with "M. T.". But that's the only (what I consider) top-level publication going consistently with "M. T.", some others do some of each. Bloomberg uses "MT" and that's relevant. Herostratus (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In short, I agree with Herostratus and IIO. The sources do not unambiguously support using any certain style, so we should follow our own house style. Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2013 (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.


Resume Tag

[edit]

Removed tag placed by an anonymous user. This user has flagged 5 pages I have at one time participated in, with no explanation or effort whatsoever to identify the issues therein. Note this tag was already removed from this page by another editor. Request specificity before arbitarily assigning tags to a page - how else should it be structured?Wintertanager (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CV

[edit]

This article blatantly reads like a CV advertising the subject. "They conducted extensive consumer research to confirm consumer demand in Britain before successfully raising £250,000 in private funding ... On the first day customers lined up around the block ... Naked's diversified approach to branding strategy, eschewing traditional media buys in favor of emerging digital channels, appealed to corporate marketers[11] allowing Naked to add 11 clients in eight months.[11] Credited with helping land significant brands such as Coca-Cola, Nokia, and Virgin Mobile ... Naked's diversified approach to branding strategy, eschewing traditional media buys in favor of emerging digital channels, appealed to corporate marketers[11] allowing Naked to add 11 clients in eight months.[11] Credited with helping land significant brands such as Coca-Cola, Nokia, and Virgin Mobile"

The only point that seems less than an endorsement of Carney is "While Carney succeeded in her main charge of shaking up Disney's marketing approach, she also had difficulty as an outsider in Hollywood's creative and marketing communities, and was dogged by rumors that her future with Disney was not secure." But this is immediately followed up with "In 2012, Carney left Disney in order to spend more time with her children," which is a classic "why I left my last job" statement. Nearly everything else in the article is naked bragging.79.97.226.247 (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're right. Somebody's gotten to this article. I toned it down a bit here and there but it needs more work. Herostratus (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

[edit]

It seems there is a lot of off-topic info about the companies that Carney worked for in this article. That info should be moved to Nails, Inc, Naked Communications and Disney if the first two merit articles. If they don't then it should be just plain removed. The Dissident Aggressor 12:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand now what you are objecting to. It is less puffery than the level of detail I've added to the page. What I'd like to discuss is - are we cutting into the bone of the article? The reason I added more info about Naked Communications is because both Naked's business model - they were indeed the first firm to move away from traditional ad buys and into social and online channels - and the success of Naked (basically a coup in the advert industry) put her name on the map. This ties in directly to the reason that she was chosen as Disney's marketing president. So now that we've removed all of that, in my opinion the article begins to lose coherence - there is no connection or relevance from Naked to Disney. How and why was she chosen as Disney's President of Marketing? Before I think we had a pithy explanation of how. Now it is so factual I think a tag could be added to 'add more detail' to the page. Thoughts? Wintertanager (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also think her role in Nails, Inc. is notable - a company founded by two young women became the largest nail salon chain in the U.K. It just seems to me that when you step back from the article, it is so thin at this point that an individual interested in learning more about her isn't going to know much of anything after reading this article. That is the intention of WP, isn't it? I understand some of the issues you've flagged, but think you are now erring too far to the other extreme. (not saying this in an antagonistic way, trying to have a discussion). Wintertanager (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that it does not read like a résumé. AlbinoFerret 21:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article read too much like a résumé, and should it be tagged as such until it is brought up to standard? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this approach, this is a better way of resolving.Wintertanager (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes This article blatantly reads like a CV advertising the subject. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Article states relevant biographical facts in neutral, encyclopedic manner, is structured similarly to other WP Bios, and is about a notable public figure. Wintertanager (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed and if there is any question of how I came to this article, it was following the links in the discussion I started at WP:AN3 that led to Wintertanger's editing restriction. The Dissident Aggressor 12:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not particularly anyway. However, note that my comments reflect an appraisal of the article as it stands today -- there seem to have been some neutrality issues addressed since the RfC went up, but that said, my thoughts on the present article are as follows. Her notability seems to be entirely derived from her role in these companies, the sole topic which the sources seem to address, so it's understandable if there is some overlap in discussion of her job roles that might be emphasized in a résumé or C.V. So long as discussion about her time with these companies exhibits proper neutral tone that is reflective of the sourcing (as it largely seems to at present), I don't really see a problem here. Further, there are a number of details about her personal life that one would definitely not expect to see in a résumé, nor is the formatting particularly close to one. If there remain concerns about the article being overly glowing or promotional, perhaps it would be helpful for the parties advocating for the tag to be more specific about the changes they would like to see in order that it might have a more encyclopedic tone. Failing that, I dare say the issues have been addressed and the tag can probably be removed now. Snow let's rap 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? This RfC as currently drafted says "too much like a..." with no word after "a." I assume from the link that "like a resume" is what is meant. The answer is no. It reads like a typical dull bio article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, that was my doing, apparently, Core. I went to C&P the "résumé" to avoid manual entry of the acute-e's, but apparently I cut instead of copying without realizing it -- my bad! But fixed now. Snow let's rap 22:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - summoned by bot - I'm assuming that like the others in this series, the issues have been largely resolved. The resume tag should be removed. I will say that the part saying she left one job "in order to spend more time with her children in New York,[12] whom she had regularly flown to see on weekends.[13]" should be axed. Seems overly detailed. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - summoned by bot - I don't personally like a subheading naming a company that has just a single sentence in it, but that is personal preference. Flat Out (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it follows MOS, but it desperately needs a prose writer to expand it or it will remain a start-class article. Atsme📞📧 12:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I do not see any significance into any of this, and this Wikipedia page is dry with facts. The article reads like a resume' to me because it does not seem like the companies are important. Nick2crosby (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tag based on both consensus and substantial edits to page since resume tag. Personally I think the page has been so pared down, it doesn't contain much information at all; believe restoring some of the content would make the page more meaningful to a user interested in Carney, who clearly meets notability. Wintertanager (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requested move 6 January 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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


M. T. Carney → MT Carney – I believe we need to revisit this after the 2013 RM (which I closed). MOS:INITIALS does say that generally, initials should be "followed by a full stop (period) and a space", but there's an exception for cases where "the person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name." In this case, the subject clearly prefers "MT Carney". According to the New York Times, "Ms. Carney goes by punctuation-free initials that stand for Marie Therese".[1] Her personal pages uniformly use "MT" [2][3][4] It's true that sources discussing her are rather inconsistent, but even looking at the evidence at the previous RM, "MT Carney" seems to be more common. Either way, her personal preference should factor in to the decision. Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. According my research of 2013 (here) sources are more or less evenly split between "M. T." and "MT". Therefore we should default to normal style.
We do allow idiosyncratic orthography like this in certain cases -- k. d. lang for instance. eBay. But Lang and Ebay are well-known and have lots of sources, and most of these use the idiosyncratic form. Carney, not so much. She's just not famous enough to get the special treatment, sorry. "[H]er personal preference should factor in to the decision" is not a sentiment I much agree with. "MT" is an attempt at branding, differentiating herself, being sporty, or whatever, which we don't need to go along with. What matters is not the orthography she prefers but that used by sources. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but your own research from 2013 suggests "MT" without the periods is more common.--Cúchullain t/c 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is true and a reasonable point. For notable publications (criteria: I, an average schmo, have heard of it), I got:
So it is 4-1-1, the latter 1 being the Times which uses no dots but does use spaces, a variation which is not on the table. My conclusion then was It's clear that "MT" has it over "M. T.". Enough to trump our normal style? Not in my opinion. But others' opinion may vary. Herostratus (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A side point: The NYT is not a reliable source for any style matter. They publish their own style guide, and it is intentionally contrarian on numerous points, for the specific and explicit purpose of diverging (in a mid-20th-century, old-timey traditionalist direction) from other publishers as a means of distinguishing themselves visually from the competition. Citing them on a style matter is like citing Marilyn Manson as representative of modern, Western male attire.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. It's clear from the above sources that she is commonly known as MT Carney.  ONR  (talk)  20:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jennifer 8. Lee, Genesis P-Orridge, and other parallel cases. MOS does not exist to tell people their own names are wrong (even if a few sources get it wrong, and even if they're not birth or legal names). Advancing as if it does is a WP:BLP problem, at least in spirit, and directly conflicts with WP:ABOUTSELF (directly) and MOS:IDENTITY (in spirit). We even make a MOS:JR exception for living persons who provably insist on the comma before Jr. in their own names and consistently use it that way. For Asian (and Hungarian) names, we do not force a particular name order against the known English-language preferences of the subject (see Hajime Sorayama yet Utada Hikaru). Whether the RS style it right is immaterial (see E. E. Cummings). We cite RS for facts about the subject (including the fact of their name spelling preference), not for how they write about the subject. So, a WP:COMMONNAME argument here is moot either way (it is not a style policy, but tells us whether the name is "M[.]T[.] Carney" style one way or another, versus or "Leanne Carney" or "Zorkonn the Space God"). The MOS:INITIALS rule is a general item that applies by default; it is not a Holy Law, and exceptions apply (as to all guidelines) in unusual cases. MOS:TM doesn't let people get away with nonsense like "P!nk" marketing stylization for Pink (singer) (except when sources overwhelmingly go along with it, which is why k. d. lang, Deadmau5, iPod), but this is distinguishable. When a desire to follow one part of MoS conflicts with another part of it and with other policy concerns, consider whether the result serves a reader-facing or editorial purpose or not, and whether insisting on it will cause more grief than it's worth. (PS: This can only be taken so far, e.g. "I write my name in purple ink so WP should use that color", "I always give my name in Chinese script and I don't want anyone to transliterate it", etc. – we're not here to entertain silliness that make things difficult for readers or editors; see Prince (singer) which is not at a symbol or at "The Artist Formerly Known as ...". It also doesn't pertain to things like band, company, and product stylization, since there are no BLP or IDENTITY issues involved.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:42, 13 January 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.

John Carter Movie

[edit]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs the John Carter movie was the largest box office bomb of all time, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter_(film)#Marketing devotes much space to M. T. Carneys role in the failure, and deems it the reason for her leaving Disney (with seemingly credible sources). Should that not be at least mentioned under Career -> Disney? 2806:2F0:5041:DFA4:AD49:BEB3:5F5D:F239 (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MT_Carney&oldid=1206552455"