Talk:Vladimir Smirnov (skier)

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


Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


Vladimir Mikhaylovich Smirnov (skier)Vladimir Mikhaylovich Smirnov – This person is likely to be significantly better know than the Bolshevik, he should be treated as the primary meaning and the Bolshevik dealt with by a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: why not just "Vladimir Smirnov (skier)"? In general, Russian people are not mentioned with their patronymic in wikipedia. And there aren't more skiers with the same name, are there? The redirect links to Smirnov. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • There are a few other Vladimir Smirnovs, patronymics are sometimes used as a disambiguator for Russian people on Wikipedia, it's a moot point whether this is better than e.g "skier". PatGallacher (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't you think it's more likely that people know that he's a skier, than that his patronymic is Mikhaylovich? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


(Relisted.) It seems to me that the patronymic is ill-suited as a disambiguator, and should not be used as such until really needed. People are much less likely to know a notable person's patronymic than what he/she indeed is notable for, when the name is searched for, or when the name is appearing in a list (e.g. a category such as "xxxx births"). HandsomeFella (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent idea. I hate disambiguating Russian people when patronymics are used. People are far more likely to know that a person is a skier/footballer/politician/etc than what their patronymic is. Jenks24 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I tend to agree that "the patronymic is ill-suited as a disambiguator, and should not be used as such until really needed. People are much less likely to know a notable person's patronymic than what he/she indeed is notable for..." I think this has come up in similar move discussions before but I can't remember where. WP:NCRUS doesn't address it either. It's something warranting a discussion so I'll post a note at WT:WikiProject Russia and WT:Disambiguation. —  AjaxSmack  03:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. bd2412 T 04:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Per all the above, but there are Russophile (my read) editors who prefer the patronymic method as the more authentic Russian. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    Comment: I've heard – but I'm far from certain – that the patronymic is used only on formal occasions or when you know a person well. In other words, you don't speak of Putin as Vladimir Vladimirovich, unless you – and those present – know him fairly well. I think this (if true) further discourages the use of patronymics in wikipedia. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    Traditionally, it's the proper way to address someone that you don't know well. But in modern use, especially in English sources, it's often not used. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    Without getting into evolution and varieties of conjugation, its use is primarily in polite (formal) conversation, where using the first name only is considered intimate, while not knowing someone's patronymic is a potential source of embarrassment (so, address and refer to others by given and patronymic). At least in the not too old days. As for use of the full name including patronymic, that's mainly in deference in the third person. (Patronymics were once reserved for the nobility and higher classes.) PЄTЄRS J V TALK 05:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: a bracketed disambiguator will be much more useful for a reader trying to find the person they are looking for in a category or other list. PamD 07:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: although WP:QUALIFIER is not explicit on this point, the example given there of William Henry (actor) shows someone who could have been distinguished by his middle name as William Albert Henry but is not: given name + surname + bracketed qualifier being preferred. PamD 08:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support --♫GoP♫TCN 14:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Support in general. Obvious exception is whenever someone is commonly referenced with the patronymic in reliable English sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Even though I think it was me who moved some of these to a patronymic form, that was quite some years ago. The fact that the search box now offers suggestions as one types the search string in makes disambiguation by occupation more helpful to readers than disambiguation by patronymic.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 13, 2011; 16:18 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.