Talk:John Monks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. The individual is well known by his personal name and WP:NCPEER is quite clear that we should therefore use that name rather than the title. --rgpk (comment) 17:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Monks → John Monks, Baron Monks of Blackley.

Oppose - Known for being a a trade unionsit and not as apeer . Also the name John Monks redirects here over other disambiguations showing this John Monks is the primary topic.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This chap is no longer wholly or exclusively known by his pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quite a rare dissent by me on this kind of question, but a scan of google news find that he is always referred to in the press as "John Monks". I haven't yet, after only a few minutes of searching admittedly, found a single reference to him anywhere as Lord Monks or anything similar. I should note that I think that WP:NCPEER is wrong on this point, and that we should move virtually all of them, but I'm voting in line with how I see current policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - he is exclusively known by his pre-peerage nomenclature (other than in a few formal documents, and we use common names, not formal names). The peerage guideline allows for exceptions, this is a clear-cut case for one. Warofdreams talk 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Former politicians who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's a trade unionist, not a politician. Ennobled trade unionists have only rarely become known by their titles. Besides, we're not a crystal ball. Warofdreams talk 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trade unionists are generally anti-class individuals. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a Crystal Ball and what they are currently known is what we have to take as the current commonly used name. If in the future the individual is known regularly by their ennobled title then that would be grounds to change the article title. To though say, it is expected that the names they are known by will change is not how things work on Wikipeida.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is an misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL. For most peers there is virtually no doubt that they will be known most commonly by their title. For this particular peer, I take no strong view. However, given the what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases, given WP:NCPEER, etc., the burden of proof is in the other direction.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Jimbo Wales What is basis against waiting until the common name actually changes? Stating it is expected this will happen, Such as assuming the name change will happen is a violation WP:CRYSTAL, as we wait for things to actually happen before implementing the change, no matter how likely it is to happen, unless it is a certainty which in these cases it is not a certainty. To quote the first line of point 1 of WP:CRYSTAL, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. In Peerage cases the expected future event is the common name will change, there is though no certainty any Peer will be known by their ennobled title, it is just a likelihood. So no I do not believe WP:CRYSTAL has been misapplied here in anyway.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Monks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Monks&oldid=1209812623"