Talk:Wayne Pygram

Pigram vs Pygram

Fact is it very much likely that the incorrect spelling of (with the "y") Pigram came from his days acting on Farscape which is what everyone has based the spelling on however local sources (the place where he lived and still does) uses his correctly spelt surname (Pigram) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Bidgee (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

On Farscape he was credited as Pygram and his imdb page also uses Pygram. He was also credited on Lost as Pygram. Google hits give 28,000 Pygram vs 1,400 Pigram. This seems strong evidence that he name really is Pygram. If his name was actually Pigram, I can't believe that he would star in 4 seasons of Farscape and never mention to the producers that they were spelling his name wrong in the opening sequence. The primary reliable sources (imdb.com, multiple TV credits) all agree that his name is Pygram - I don't feel that the pages you list are sufficient to refute this. It does not look like he has his own website (http://www.waynepygram.com is not his and http://www.waynepigram.com gives a 404), which would have leant a lot of weight to the correct spelling - however, there is a site for his band - http://www.signalroom.com/ - on the bio section this again lists his name as Pygram 87.115.94.216 (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - I think I have got strong evidence for Pygram from his autograph. It is quite clear in the below images that he himself spells his name with a "Y" and not an "I" (he signs as "W Pyg-."): http://tradercracks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Wayne-Pygram-as-Isaac.jpg (Lost) http://www.thecollectorzone.com/images/products/1162_l.jpg (Farscape) http://im4.ebidst.com/upload_big/7/7/5/1266672567-23688-0.jpg (Farscape all actors). I have updated the article to use Pygram in the body but don't know how to rename the page. I'd be grateful is someone could do this 87.115.94.216 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, a site claiming to be his official site used "Y" - it was http://www.waynepygram.com until mid-2007 when it went down (has since come back up but as a completely unrelated site). An archived copy can be seen here http://web.archive.org/web/20051103222040/www.waynepygram.com/index2.html 87.115.94.216 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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: page moved. Most links were already for the new name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Wayne Pigram → Wayne Pygram — Page history indicates that this page was created in Mar 2005 and was spelt Pygram. This was uncontested for almost 6 years until Jan 2011 when user Bidgee (now retired) asserted that this was incorrect and correct spelling was Pigram. Edit war ensued between Bidgee and DesertFly3. There is compelling evidence on the talk page that Pygram is the correct spelling (title sequence of Farscape (see 4m50s)[7], imdb[8], TV credits, autograph[9], official Farscape site [10], Amazon product details[11], official personal site(from archive.org) [12], site for his band (bio section)[13], news about his band[14], promotional work [15][16], etc). In addition google hits give ratios of 20:1 for Pygram spelling (Pygram=23,500[17], Pigram=1,430[18]). It seems reasonable to assume that Pygram is the correct spelling and the references using Pigram can be explained as typos of an unusual name. In addition, large media outlets (BBC[19], NYtimes[20], etc) use Pygram. Claims that Pigram is the correct spelling are generally restricted to smaller sites) 80.229.123.31 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose Reliable sources are stated within the article, hardly small site as ABC is a large public TV broadcaster, Charles Sturt University is one of the major uni's in NSW and Australia and the Wagga Wagga City Council is a local government organisation, the 87. IP's sources are questionable and not very reliable. Google results isn't the best way to gauge on reliable sources. 124.184.225.134 (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But there are also articles on ABC that use the spelling Pygram [21][22][23]. The BBC is a large public TV broadcaster also, and they use Pygram[24]. I'm wondering how you explain his autographs [25] and the photos of him doing promotional work[26]? We can at least agree that he is credited in Farscape as Pygram, but are you saying that this is a typo or is your argument that Pygram is his stage name? 80.229.123.31 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Far far more sources use Pygram. Searching the Sydney Morning Herald archives for "wayne pigram" gives one result whereas "wayne pygram" has 43 results. Most of these results appear to be theatre reviews etc, and they are before he was on Farscape, so it's hardly something that they got wrong on the credits and has stuck since. More likely explanation is that the sources with the 'i' just spelt it wrong. Quantpole (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment After checking the telephone directories and the electoral role for his home town, it looks like "Pigram" is the correct spelling, while "Pygram" is likely a stage name. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Is there a policy on whether actors/musicians should be listed under their "real" name or their stage name? Looking at some well known example, i.e. Winona Ryder, John Wayne, Marilyn Manson, Natalie Portman, etc, it looks like the page is listed under the stage name, they have an intro in the format "<Real name> (better known by stage name <stage name>)" and then the rest of the article refers to them by their stage name. Maybe the logic for this is that they are in wikipedia because of their notability as an actor/musician and they act/sing under this name? The best match I can find at the moment is the section about common names in the article title policy document. I can also see the "Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens" section of the Naming conventions (people) guideline, which starts "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". It would be good for the article if we could include a link to a reliable source that confirms he uses a stage name 91.125.77.26 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that there are two common names, one that he uses on-screen and one that he uses for everything else. I don't think either can be given more weight. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying and agree that many actors/musicians have an on-screen name that is different from the name they use in their everyday life, but I feel that in the end we will have give more weight to one or the other as an article can only have one title. 91.125.77.26 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately the redirect that is already in place means that the article can be found using either name, and that will not change after a move, if any, so I don't really see what a move will achieve. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it the move would make this page consistent with other Wikipedia articles on actors who use stage names. From the pages I have looked at (mentioned above), the current naming convention seems to favour the stage name over the "real-life" name, since that is the name that most people know them as. Deciding on the title of a page (i.e. moving the page) is a way to agree on a single name with which to refer to the subject of the article. If we agree that the page should be titled "Pigram", then references in the body to this actor would use Pigram (as is the case with the current article). However, if consensus is to use "Pygram" as the common name, then the body would refer to Pygram also (as was the case until last month). To give you my perspective on this, like most other viewers, I know this actor as "Wayne Pygram" and it seems odd to me that the name which he is commonly know as around the world is not the one used in this article. If his "real-world" name is Pigram, it should of cource be included in the article, but other pages seem to indicate the normal way to deal with this would be to name the page "Wayne Pygram" and then have the opening sentance read "Wayne Pigram, better known by his stage name Wayne Pygram, is an Australian actor...etc" 91.125.77.26 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got to disagree with AussieLegend when he/she says that there are two common names. Pygram is by far the most common usage, and is always used for what he is notable as - an actor. As 91... points out most actors use alternate names but we use the name by which they are known. Quantpole (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Silly me forgot to put in a formal Oppose vote. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion looks more like there was no consensus then a consensus to move, really shouldn't have been moved without more discussion since it really hasn't solved the issues of the two names. 124.183.163.127 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the closing instructions for page moves, I think this passage is relevant "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions."

To broadly summarize the arguments, on one side the argument is that Pigram is this actor's real name and so should be used. The other side claims Pygram is the name used most frequently and so should be the title. There does appears to be evidence that this actors real name is Pigram (in particular AussieLegends mention of electoral role/telephone listing and the local news stories in Wagga Wagga mentioned by 124.184.225.134). The evidence that he works under the name Pygram is also clear - the Farscape credits, autographs, imdb page all consistently use Pygram.

However, the closing instructions state that contributors arguments must be evaluated by looking at "applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". It has been mentioned in the discussion that article title policy favours the uses of the most commonly used name. There is no real dispute the Wayne acts under the name Pygram. This can clearly be seen in the credits for his major roles and his imdb page. Since he acts as Pygram, and he is notable for being an actor, this policy favours the use of Pygram. Closing instructions also say to follow naming conventions. As shown above, there is a clear consensus to list actors in wikipedia under the name that they are credited as (the examples given were Winona Ryder, John Wayne and Natalie Portman). So again, closing instructions favour Pygram. There is no mention in policy that "real" names are to be favoured - in fact, the article title policy states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject". Looking at these facts in combination, it is clear that the argument that his real name is Pigram so the page should be titled Pigram is not backed by policy. As such, I would expect that the closing admin took this into account when assigning weight to the arguments and determining which position was backed by policy.

As an aside, I would argue that January's move to Pigram was not supported by concensus. As mentioned above, the edit history indicates that User:Bidgee decided to move it without discussion on 20 Jan 2011. User:DesertFly3 disagreed with the new title and reverted this change. After this revert, following the standard practice of WP:BRD, Bidgee should have started a move disussion and there should have been a discussion to see if the page should be renamed to Pigram. Instead the two of them got into an edit war over it (it looks like warnings were handed out and neither have been active since - Bidgee states he has retired and DesertFly3 has not edited since). Bidgee did manged to get the last revert in, leaving the page at Wayne Pigram. This should have been picked up at the time and reverted. Unfortunately, that was not done. 84.51.186.85 (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to use a bit of COMMONSENSE here when interpreting WP:COMMONNAME. While he might use Pygram for his screen name, most people probably don't know his actual name at all, and if you asked any English speaking person to spell his last name, they'd likely spell it P-I-G, not P-Y-G. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you've lost me. WP:COMMONNAME simply means the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, in this case Wayne Pygram. He's been credited as Wayne Pygram in all his major roles, which is why people looking for information on him would search wikipedia for "Wayne Pygram". 87.112.151.185 (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, in this case Wayne Pygram" - That's a fairly subjective determination. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with your characterization that it is subjective. Using a search engine test to examine the frequency of "Wayne Pygram" v. "Wayne Pigram" in various reliable sources shows the following:

For all sites: Wayne Pygram=46,700 [27], Wayne Pigram=1,730 [28]

For *.au: Wayne Pygram=912 [29], Wayne Pigram=186 [30]

For *.nz: Wayne Pygram=304 [31], Wayne Pigram=1 [32]

For *.uk: Wayne Pygram=2760 [33], Wayne Pigram=21 [34]

For bbc.co.uk: Wayne Pygram=78 [35], Wayne Pigram=0 [36]

For nytimes.com: Wayne Pygram=27 [37], Wayne Pigram=0 [38]

For smh.com.au: Wayne Pygram=1 [39], Wayne Pigram=0 [40]

For abc.net.au: Wayne Pygram=3 [41], Wayne Pigram=49 [42]

For usatoday.com: Wayne Pygram=1 [43], Wayne Pigram=0 [44]

There is a clear preference for Pygram v Pigram. Overall occurances onm the web in general favour Pygram by 25:1. Selected reliable sources such as the BBC and the NY times use Pygram exclusively. The only anomaly is ABC, which favours Pigram, but they do not seem to be consistent - they also use the Pygram spelling in some articles. Overall, I'd say the picture is pretty clear - but I'd be interested if you could find a WP:RS other then ABC that favoured Pigram. 87.113.20.49 (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Google hits really aren't a good guide. You need to actually examine the reliable sources that refer to him and remember, not everyone has access to all or even the same offline sources. The sources I've checked, which includes offline sources like the electoral rolls and telephone books (not whitepages.com.au) and there seems a bias for Pigram. Your online hits show a bias for Pygram. The people of Wagga support Pigram. The fact that different examinations by different people show different biases shows how subjective it is and all the Google hits in the world doesn't change that. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The link you provide WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to deletion discussions and in particular how google hits are not useful for determining notability or lack therof. We are not disucussing notability here, we are discussing which name is more frequently used. The link I provided, WP:GOOGLE, describes how search engine tests can be used to identify the names used for things (including alternative names and terminology) and to identify how and where a term is commonly being used. The results of these tests shows Pygram is the more frequently used term, across websites in general and reliable sources such as the BBC and NYTimes in particular.

Look, this discussion is getting us nowhere, so I'm going to stop now. Your arguments do not convince me that an actor who is exclusively credited as Pygram is somehow more commonly known around the world as Pigram. Likewise, I cannot convince you that a man who is called Pigram is his everyday life should have his wikipedia page entitled Pygram. We clearly have no common ground to work towards, so further discussion is simply a waste of both our time. 91.125.45.200 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The messages at WP:GOOGLEHITS are valid here. It's not valid to use the number of Google hits to justify retention of an article, neither is it valid to use the number of Google hits to justify one article name over another. Googlehits says "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet" and that was my point about offline references. The link you provided does not describe "how search engine tests can be used", it describes how search engine tests can help, with the operative word being "help". It's not the end process and relying on search engines alone is ineffective. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)