Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30


This is related to the header above but there are some extra difficulties. One editor (Sheynhertz-Unbayg (talk · contribs)) has created many pages that list place names, surnames and people with these names that he believes share one common root. The results look like Wassertrüding (onomastics) or Gott. What should these pages look like after cleanup? How can we best separate the disambiguation information from family information and name information? Kusma (討論) 11:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My attitude is that you do have to ask for verifiability of the onomastics (like everything else); but that separation out has a common sense dimension. There is a merge proposed, for example, of Spira (Spiro) and Spira (family name). I would think in the end that the family history should be separated from the page(s) (numerous variants) for the surnames. But it really ought to be a priority to get a clear organisation first. Charles Matthews 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ouch, that's an ugly page (talking about Wassertrüding (onomastics) here). The several surnames on the page are not confusable, so shouldn't be on the same disambiguation page; in fact, most surnames have not more than one blue link, so do not need a disambiguation page (also because the red links are just names, with no other identifying characteristics). I'm trying to clean up the page to show what I think it should look like, though I'm not sure it's worth it. Eugène van der Pijll 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've personally been considering onamastics pages to not really be disambiguation pages (much as the Category:Lists of people by name aren't really disambig pages). There's a clear effort to style them very differently, so why not let them go their own course (though obviously wikipedia core policies of verifiability, citing sources, original research, etc. apply everywhere). --Interiot 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. Just the pages I am talking about did not contain any verifiable or cited information about onomastics, and just list people whose names might share a common root. As the author never answered to anything about these pages (and there were some other problems with him), he is currently banned and some people are trying to clean up his contributions. Letting the pages go their own course for the last year has resulted in a massive WP:OWN problem. See also WP:AN#Ban of Sheynhertz-Unbayg and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Kusma (討論) 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Self references

Lately it seems like there's a growing amount of self-references to Wikipedia located on disambiguation pages, possibly coincident with the creation of {{selfref}}. Example disambiguation pages include AFD, TFD, CFD, MFD, RFD, IFD, VFD, CSD, RFA, MOS, RFC, FAC, DRV, NOT...

I was wondering if it might be reasonable to add a small statement to MOSDAB regarding these. Either:

When self-references are appropriate for disambiguation pages, they should be enclosed in {{selfref}}, and be mentioned below article disambiguation entries.


Disambiguation pages are primarily for disambiguating articles. Entries should not be added for other namespaces (eg. Wikipedia:, User:).

My biggest issue is that most uses of {{selfref}} seem to be at the top of a disambig page. This is somewhat useful for editors I suppose, but for link-fixers they're not used, and for readers, I think this is not good because they aren't interested in policy, and it seems to be generally against the spirit of WP:SELF to make Wikipedia links the most prominent.

A few arguments for or against Wikipedia:-space links might include... When correcting ambiguous links, in almost no case will a backlink ever get dabed into a Wikipedia:-space link, since proper articles don't link to Wikipedia:-space. On the other hand, disambiguation pages are formatted for use by readers too, and "disambiguation pages are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace", and shortcuts are redirects, so it's maybe not completely surprising that shortcuts and disambig pages are seen as having overlapping purposes. On the other hand, it seemed like historically, disambig pages didn't link to Wikipedia:-space at all. --Interiot 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue was briefly mentioned on the Esperanza disambiguation page, and Ral315 put what seems like a pretty good guideline in a short and sweet manner. To quote:
"Self-references should be avoided at all costs. In cases of things like Nonsense, Merge, and User page, non-users might actually be interested in viewing our nonsense, merger, and user page policies. But Esperanza is not something that would be notable outside Wikipedia."
That seems pretty appropriate to me, at least to decide when or when not to include them. -- Natalya 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Right. So if there's consensus that WP:SELF allows them, then obviously the second option shouldn't be used. How about the first option then, moving the {{selfref}} mentions down below article entries? --Interiot 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, self-references should always go inside {{selfref}}. Whether the self-ref is appropriate or not is more of a case-by-case determination. I think most of the ones that you mention are worth having the self-ref in. As for placement of the self-ref -- I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm don't see whay a self-ref would rate getting placement at the top of a dab page. olderwiser 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

some headlines in large lists?

Is it ok to use some headlines in very large disambiguation pages? Because someone removed them according to this site and replaced them with bold text only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

No, the headings are certainly preferable (to me). If the list is short enough not to need headings, it doesn't need bold text either. Maybe the other editor was trying to get the table of contents to disappear? (And there are better ways of solving that issue.) Which page? -- JHunterJ 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you take a look at the Longer lists section of the Manual of Style, it says that bold separating headings are appropriate when the list of entries gets long, and using headlines become appropriate when the list of entries becomes so long that it spans more than a page or thereabouts. -- Natalya 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Unsigned above did say "very large", but I was paying no attention to that list note. Again, then, I have to ask, which page? :-) -- JHunterJ 11:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The anon's contributions indicate Chimera, which is indeed an unholy mess. — Catherine\talk 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

First names

Semeone remove all entry of Adriano, i think at least keep all footballer with Adriano nickname. Matt86hk talk 12:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(It was me.) Why should the footballers be kept? -- JHunterJ 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Name_pages_and_disambiguation -- JHunterJ 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I see this has been reverted by JHunterJ again, who should probably let someone else revert this after discussion. Here's the sentiment so far from people who did not see this page previously:
  • Some people have tried to do this before. I disagree. [1]
  • I don't think its appropriate to rewrite policy to suit your intentions. [2]
  • I have a unique solution. Add Brainstorming subpages to each official policy and guideline, keep {{brainstorming}} on the top of those subpages, on the original, make editors aware of the subpage. [3]
  • This is really just a part of the continued onslaught against useful dab pages in the name of adherence to the manual of style. [4]
I'd like to see further discussion and clarification of this policy before making sitewide changes like this. The above conversation does not suggest consensus has been reached. Jokestress 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand why you think I shouldn't have reverted AKMask's unilateral reversion of previously discussed edits; AKMask's reversion was made without discussion here, and should have been reverted. If further discussion does take place before another reversion occurs, of course I won't revert it. And rather than just quoting a mailing list, it would be useful to have those people make their comments here, to facilitate communication, since comments like "I disagree" don't illuminate anything, while "rewrite policy to suit your intentions" and "continued onslaught" ignore the discussion that has taken place so far, in this section and the Hndis section below. -- JHunterJ 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Because I feel that this is a pretty significant policy change that should have more editor feedback than the half dozen people who weighed in before you implemented your proposed sitewide changes. The guideline could use some clarification, especially regarding how to handle given names. I contend that lists of people by given name have value and have a place in the project, and that those lists should be linked from name pages. Beyond the need for more discussion on that, I guess I feel the main issue is one of process. I don't believe you should be implementing that big of a change to a lot of pages without getting more feedback than what's above. I will certainly abide by the consensus, and I am in basic agreement with everything in the proposed changes, but this goes beyond being bold to what I consider a hasty move without enough points of view sought out. Jokestress 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't implemented any sitewide changes; just this page and the A and B surname pages that happen to have given names too... Would you like to create the List of people named Jennifer (or other name of your choice)?
I think this is exactly being bold: I made changes based on the old guidelines, received feedback, adjusted my approach based on that feedback, gotten more feedback, edited the guidelines based on the feedback, and so on. Without making the bold changes in the first place, I think some of the useful feedback wouldn't have been offered up, since all the interested parties aren't watching this project page. -- JHunterJ 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that you ignored my feedback and kept going. I suggest we pick a more manageable one than LoPNJennifer. Ones that might be interesting that I watch: Elvira, Calpurnia, Andrea (pre-JHunterJ), Athena, but I am open to other suggestions. Perhaps a good test article is one with a very well-known one-named person, like Madonna, Cher, Pele the footballer, etc. One interesting thing in the case of Andrea (the one that alerted me to the policy change) is that it is a male given name in some countries and a female name in others. That might be another thing to take into consideration. I guess what I'd like to see is something akin to baby name books, with an etymology, a history of the naming trend, and a list of notable people with that name. Of the ones above, Elvira might be interesting as a case, since it's a place, a given name, the name of a celebrity, a song title, etc.
Also FYI, I will be offline for a few days after today, so I will check back on my return. Jokestress 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I kept going on the surnames (some of which happened to include given name lists) primarily to get the new {{surname}} template into use instead of the not-quite-applicable {{hndis}}, but I've stalled even that for now too. Andrea sounds prime. I think the baby-name book effect is one of the things that one of the other editors was against, in the hndis section below, but I have no problem with it. In particular, it sounds like it would separate the disambiguation entry (which IMO shouldn't be cluttered with people who happen to have Title as a first name but aren't referred to by just it) and the name entry. Which was one of my suggestions early on... :-) -- JHunterJ 20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) OK, taking Andrea, a disambig would need to account for Andrea (surname). For that, we'd need to think about how to handle variants like d'Andrea, etc. Another bulleted item would be Andrea (given name) and some way to handle variant spellings and nicknames (Andi, Drea, Andria,etc.). I agree with the idea of streamlining the main page Andrea or Andrea (disambiguation). I think I also agree with LoPbSurname Andrea and LoPbGivenName Andrea, then sort out all of that later. That way we are getting what many feel is listcruft off a disambig page, but preserving information for those interested. I believe casual readers such as young people and prospective parents will find a list of people with a name interesting or useful (children probably look up their own names a lot based on the vanity additions I see on name pages). Once we have a standardized way to handle surname and given name articles on a disambig page, we can address listcruft at that article level. That at least solves the disambiguation issue at hand here. Jokestress 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people):
Don't see the need for any change to this guidance. --Francis Schonken 08:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's suggested changing the guidance on how articles should be named, just on which articles should or shouldn't be listed in disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ 12:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've undone my earlier removals of given-name holders. Not created new pages, just put the lists back on the pages they came from, although in some cases lower down and otherwise edited. -- JHunterJ 09:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This talk page

Consensus among editors on this talk page appears to be insufficient to get changes to the associated page to "stick." Frustrating... -- JHunterJ 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See also

In the hope of breaking the stalemate and making a fresh start, would people please consider the following proposal? I would like to change the guidelines for a "See also" section to this:

There may be a "See also" section which can include:

  • Articles where Title is part of the name, for example
    • Title City, Title County, or Title Township
    • Title School, Title College, or Title University
    • Title River, or Title Island
  • People with Title as a surname
  • People with Title as a given name
  • Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
  • Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont

If we can get consensus for this, we can then discuss how to deal with dabs where the list of people is large enough to justify a separate page or pages. CarolGray 07:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me, but then the consensus of the people who have already been in on this discussion hasn't amounted to much. I'm hoping the "stalemate" will be broken by new editors responding to the calls on the mailing list, AN/I, and the village pump, or by their absence. -- JHunterJ 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm more or less OK with CarolGray's suggestion. Although, I'm of the opinion that unless the list is exceedingly long, it is not always necessary to have a see also section -- and I don't think we should imply that it is necessary or recommended to relegate all such items identified here to a see also section. Things like Title County, Title Township, Title University (or University of Title), Title River, or Title Island, are often referenced without the modifier as Title alone, and as such can and IMO should be included in the base list if there are a relatively small number of entries. I wouldn't want to codify exactly what that number should be -- but a rule of thumb along the lines of 9 +/- 2 seems about right. I mean, a lot depends on context. If there is a list consisting of municipalities, then I would certainly expect that Title Township articles would be included in the list, However, if there are dozens of such townships, then it might be appropriate to simply link to a separate disambiguation page. Things like likely misspellings or terms that only include the term being disambiguated (and are rarely referred to by the term alone) should always go in a see also section.
Oh, and for the record, I think I'm OK with JHunterJ's edits to the page. I'm not sure I completely understand all the implications, but I don't see anything to be too concerned about. olderwiser 13:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Title (name) resolves several concerns regarding loss of data on given name pages. Title (name) should link to lists by surname, given name, etc. for utility. CarolGray's suggestions seem fine, provided that in implementing it, we are creating pages for content being removed from the disambiguation page, rather than removing content wholesale without preserving it elsewhere. That's the crux of my initial concern. Jokestress 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So, for short lists, there should be a "People with the surname X" and/or "People with the given name X" section(s), after the disambiguations for things called simply "X"? (And for longer lists, move them to new pages?) The edits that were reverted went that direction for surnames, but not given names (note that the reverted version does not allow for either case). Other previous comments indicated that lists of people by given name were non-encyclopedic. -- JHunterJ 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
IMO, lists of people with a common given name are not particularly encyclopedic. But if people want to expend the effort to put such lists together and maintain them, then I've no objection. BUT, I don't think it is appropriate to include lists of given names on a disambiguation page and such lists as standalone pages would not really be disambiguation pages, IMO. The exception is if the person is commonly referred to solely by their given name, though I think this would be relatively uncommon--mostly applicable to pre-modern figures, royalty, and some entertainers. It would be OK to link to such a list people with a particular given name from a disambiguation page though. Surnames are different--it is not at all unusual to know only a person's surname -- so I think it is appropriate to include lists of surnames on a disambiguation page (and moving them to a separate page if the list is lengthy). olderwiser 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I feel that a blanket dismissal of given name lists is usually not based on careful consideration of all instances, but is usually based on an argument that common given names will lead to unwieldy or unmanageable lists. That's probably true, but I'd argue that lists of people by given name can be encyclopedic. Taking the Andrea example again, many of the Italian notables with this given name were "Andrea [son] of/from ____," where the surname is really a place name or another given name (often their father's). That's where things seem to get a little murky. For instance, Andrea del Sarto (aka Andrea d'Agnolo or Andrea Vannucchi) shows that a given name could be variously qualified. You see the same thing in some areas of Afghanistan today, where many people are just known by one name (usually a given name), but are distinguished when necessary by home town, father's name, physical description, occupation, etc. Many surnames are in fact etymologically based on these sorts of given name distinctions. I'd argue that a list of people by given name John is different than a list of people by given name Hunter. I'd also argue that the current disambiguation template you propose eliminates too many important links to articles involving given names. Taking John as an example, John Doe and John Bull should be on any encyclopedic page about that given name. So maybe taking your earlier tack, we should consider a very common name as well as a less common one to consider the range of possibilities we may encounter on these disambiguation pages. Jokestress 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting in regards to how this style guideline should be expressed. I agree about John Doe and John Bull (and just noticed that they are not listed on either John or John (name) -- curious). I'm not so sure about Anrea though. Like I said, I don't really have any objection to such a list of names, just don't treat it as a disambiguation page. For myself, the litmus test for entries on a disambiguation page is whether people might reasonably expect a particular term to lead them, either through a link or through the search box, to an article on something that is commonly referenced by that term alone. I find it hard to accept that people would start looking for an article based only on the given name (with some noted exceptions--and some of your Andreas [5] might qualify). I can acknowledge that some persons might find it interesting to browse people sharing a given name, but that is distinct from disambiguation. In your example, both Andrea d'Agnolo and Andrea Vannucchi redirect to Andrea del Sarto. Surprisingly, there are no disambiguation pages yet for d'Agnolo or Vannucchi or del Sarto or Sarto, but I would expect that they would have an entry for Andrea. In any case, I don't think the guidelines as currently written support including entries for given names on a disambiguation page without a reasonable expectation that they might be referenced by given name alone. Are you suggesting a change to the disambiguation style guideline or perhaps suggesting there should be some other sort of guidance pertaining to lists of persons sharing a given name? olderwiser 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Those del Sarto redirects you mention exist because I made them this morning. I didn't add John Bull and John Doe, though articles like those should obviously be accounted for in any template for disambiguations of given names. My main point about these disambiguation pages is that we need to have a template that accounts for given names, whether as lists or as articles. As the MoS is written right now, all that information is being deleted rather than moved, which offends my inclusionist sensibilities and eliminates information that may be useful for someone researching a given name. It's a question of organization versus deletion, in my opinion. I believe lists of people by given name have encyclopedic value, especially for less common names. I agree most if not all such lists should not appear on disambig pages, but I believe readers who wish to should be able to drill down to those from the disambiguation pages if so inclined. Jokestress 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree most if not all such lists should appear on disambig pages -- is the "not" where you intended it to be in that sentence? Because, I don't think lists of common given names should be on disambiguation pages. I'm OK with preserving the information on standalone pages that would not be considered under disambiguation style guidelines (you may have to fight battles regarding the encyclopedic value of such lists, but I would not oppose them. And I think a link to such pages from a disambiguation page would be fine. So are you suggesting that something be added to the style guide (or perhaps to the main disambiguation guideline) suggesting that these lists by given name shouldn't simply be removed from disambiguation pages, but rather moved to a separate page? olderwiser 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Inserted second "not" per feedback. Jokestress 22:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very nice to return from my holiday to read such a constructive and useful discussion. In the light of these comments, I propose to extend bullet points five and six:


  • People with Title as a surname — if there are more than a handful of these, a separate Title (name) page should be created
  • People with Title as a given name (rare/unusual names only — otherwise, entries should be moved to a separate Title (name) page)


For really common names, Title (name) will need to link to sublists Title (surname), and Title (given name). But I don't think we need to deal with this here at MoS:DAB — like olderwiser, I don't think Title (name) pages are dab pages, see here. — CarolGray 14:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is commented above I find it hard to accept that people would start looking for an article based only on the given name . This I think is a crux in the whole discussion. I don't find this hard to accept at all. I think this corresponds to a very common situation in doing any kind of research, namely you have a given name to go on, possibly with an initial or two, and want to locate the person, knowing a few other attributes or just (for example) that they might be the subject of discussion in some scholarly book or paper. Put it another way, you do get people referred to just by surname; it happens all the time. Charles Matthews 15:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about surnames or given names? Earlier, you said "I think that given names are different from family names. I don't really have a personal stake in listing by given name." I think if you have just a name and an initial or two, the name you'll have is the surname, not a given name. -- JHunterJ 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe the most effective way to proceed will be to take a couple of real-world examples, let everyone look at those, then base the MoS on feedback from the examples. The Hunter (disambiguation) page could really use some work. Want to do that one and see how it looks? My main challenge to editors would be not to lose any data there right now. Jokestress 16:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Moore could use some work as well, although it doesn't have as much dab aspects as hunter. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If the people name lists are not part of the dab, at which number of etries they shall be moved out to Title (name)/ (given name) / (surname)? For one entry I assume not. Is ten a good number, to call for splitt? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy with ten as a general guideline, but I think some leeway is a good idea. On a dab page with only a few non-people entries, more than ten people would be okay. On a very long page with a large number of other entries, I would favour splitting off if there were five or more people. CarolGray 15:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

CarolGray's sample

In response to Jokestress's suggestion, this is what I think Hunter (disambiguation) should look like -> User:CarolGray/Hunter (and User:CarolGray/Hunter(name)). I haven't deleted anything of any consequence, but I have moved information around, and I've linked to William Hunter (disambiguation) rather than listing all the William Hunters, etc. Comments, criticisms, anyone? CarolGray 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Determining when to include a name on the dab page may be more art than science, but I think your pages should be efficient for most lookups of the various uses of hunter, which is the main goal, I think. (John User:Jwy talk) 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. You've moved both the surname-holders and the given-name-holders to a single, separate page, Title (name). I know that one of the resistances I met earlier was in moving the surname-holders off of the dab page; I think there is less of an issue with moving given-name-holders off. I don't have any preference either way; if the name-holders are kept on the page, I think they should be listed in their own sections after the usual dabs; if the lists are both long, they could each have their own page, Title (surname) and Title (given name). The eventual edit to this style guide should probably note the alternatives. For given names that do not evoke a particular person (Elvis springs to mind most readily), I think the style guide should lean in the direction of keeping the holders off the base dab page, whether or not the surname-holders remain. -- JHunterJ 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it also. Though I'd change the intro of the Hunter (name) page to read "Hunter is both a surname and a given name." followed by subsections for each. Question -- presumably a page such as this would be tagged as {{Hndis}} and thus be considered a type of disambiguation page, correct? olderwiser 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope not. "Hunter" is not an ambiguous human name, unless there are two or more people who go by the one-word name. "John Smith" is an ambiguous human name. "Hunter" should be tagged as a {{surname}} instead though. -- JHunterJ 13:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't realized that hndis was for two-part names. People have been adding it pretty liberally to any page that has any human names on it. I've been removing it from pages where the human names are not the majority of content. But there are many pages like Angela, Andy, and Anita that are tagged as hndis. olderwiser 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I had been getting to them, but stopped when applying the current guidelines (like removing the things not known simply as Title, e.g., given-name holders) raised hackles, which is what prompted a lot of this discussion. I think Category:Surnames and Category:Given names might be made subcategories of Ambiguous human names (if people want to be able to find them there), but I'd rather not see them intermingled in the "main" list. -- JHunterJ 14:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree the intro of the Hunter (name) page should be "Hunter is both a surname and a given name". I've also tried putting in level two section headers, what do you think?
Like JHunterJ, I don't want Hunter (name) to be tagged as {{hndis}}. I am keen to keep Title (name) pages out of Category:Disambiguation, because I hope it would help to resolve the conflict between the "inclusionists" and the "dab purists".
One question remains in my mind before implementing this - should we use Title (name) and/or Title (surname) and/or Title (given name)? There doesn't seem to be any consistency amongst the articles in Category:Surnames. Maybe MoS:DAB should allow for either: this isn't the right place for a discussion of this issue - it probably belongs at Category talk:Surnames or Category talk:Lists of ambiguous human names. CarolGray 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I like separate (surname) and (given name) pages, but I prefer "List of people named Jennifer" to "Jennifer (given name)" for that matter, to leave Jennifer (given name) for baby-book type info on the meaning of the name, popularity, etc. Agree they aren't dabs, though, and should be discussed elsewhere. I've made an "inclusive" change to this project page. I'll restore the lists I deleted from the given-name articles earlier (based on the previous guidelines). -- JHunterJ 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Middle names

I'd assume that I could at least delete middle name holders (see Harrison or Scott -- at least Harrison doesn't have to resort to pipelinks!). But I expect I won't see all the objections until after I try it... -- JHunterJ 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)