Eisspeedway

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)

Shortcut


Lord Lucan

There is a discussion at Talk:Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan#Requested move which affects the vast majority of articles on British hereditary peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrothesp (talk • contribs) 14:20, 16 July 2012

Napoleon and Galileo

Napoleon's article is currently titled Napoleon, whereas Galileo's is titled Galileo Galilei. Doesn't Napoleon contravene WP:MONONYM, which specifically states: Don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used. For example, Oprah Winfrey is the article title, and Oprah redirects there. And if an exception can be made for Napoleon [1], shouldn't one be made for Galileo [2] as well? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated or spurious logic

"Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it." This logic may have held in the past but now neither Wikipedia's internal search nor Google's search (or anyone else) is affected by article titles - in fact, where needed, article disambiguation with bracketed dob-dod is probably the most compact and elegant way especially when people are identified by a number of adjectives - example Christopher_Johnston_(1822-1891) is far better than surgeon / entomologist / physician none of which he solely is. Shyamal (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously voiced an opinion that is somewhat the opposite. I think that on a disambiguation page like Christopher Johnston, it's dumb, except in unusual cases (such as when there are two or more Scottish footballers by the same name), to include years of birth and death in the description. For example, if Christopher Johnston, Lord Sands (1857–1934), judge and Unionist Party (Scotland) Member of Parliament is the Christopher Johnston the user is looking for, the context within which they came across the name has a good chance of helping them discern that they're looking for the judge/Member of Parliament rather than the footballer or the musician/record label owner or the American surgeon/anatomist or the American physician/Assyriologist, whereas, for example, even if they have a sense that the person was a 19th century figure, distinguishing them here by which year in the 19th century three of the were born is going to be useless.
All the more so if the year of birth were to be included in the disambiguator itself.
If there are three Scottish footballers with the same name, then, probably, we have no choice, not because providing the year of birth will clearly point the user (who probably doesn't know whether the footballer was born, say, in 1947 or 1952 or 1959) in the right direction but because, in the end, the titles have to be distinct. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that distinct is the key, and keeping it short and perhaps analogy with other language Wikis could be considered (see for example - pl:Kazimierz_Wodzicki_(1816–1889)). Shyamal (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request in NCPDAB (overprecision)

WP:NCPDAB currently states:

Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it. Disambiguating by vital year may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and same specific disambiguation qualifier. In these cases, use [[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]] with a comma and born unabbreviated (not b.). For example, with two actors named Charles Hawtrey: Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914).

I'd like to propose adding the following caveat:

Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it. Disambiguating by vital year may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and same specific disambiguation qualifier. In these cases, use [[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]] with a comma and born unabbreviated (not b.). For example, with two actors named Charles Hawtrey: Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914). However, if all ambiguous persons have the same qualifier (e.g., occupation), then the qualifier may be omitted, to avoid overprecision: Charles Hawtrey (born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (born 1914).

Otherwise, WP:OVERPRECISION would need to make an exception for WP:NCP. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seem like it's been standard for so long that redirects would anyways need to be created for {{R from predictable disambiguation}}. Seems we should have more than WP:SILENCE to divert from this. I reverted the good faith addition. —Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem with the suggested addition is that the articles are not at those titles. In practice, the qualifier is not omitted. DrKay (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Film cast

What are the rules for actors who go by a different name now than they did at the time the subject of a given Wikipedia article was released? I know that transgender actors have their present name listed even in films where they were pre-transition, but I can't seem to find information about actors who later took on a stage name different to their birth name (such as Miley Cyrus), reverted to their birth name (such as Thandiwe Newton) or changed their stage name when they got married (like Tara Strong or Aaron Taylor-Johnson). 2A01:4B00:8043:D300:A449:CC61:15BC:29AF (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:NCP