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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved as per consensus to Louis Martin (lay brother). I don't think this is a great title (what on earth is a "lay brother"? A Christian who is not a priest? Presumably there are other Louis Martins who fit this) and given the complexity of the discussion, I think anyone who comes in with a brilliant idea not previously suggested would be welcomed. But we do, thankfully, have a consensus, and while I don't like the new title, A) this isn't a supervote and B) I can't think of anything better.(non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Martin (blessed) → Louis Martin (watchmaker) – Louis Martin (layman) is another possibility, and more representative of his claims to notability, but it's just not a very good disambiguator. In many Christian traditions, a layman is anyone who isn't in the clergy. But either option is better than using an WP:HONORIFIC, IMO. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC) relisted see below Andrewa (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support either - per nom, (layman) probably best, but both better than current dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and strongly oppose Blessed Louis Martin as unsupported in Google Books and even more honorific than the present title In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This particular argument needs further discussion, see #Usage below. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He's known for being beatified and only for being beatified. He's not known for being a watchmaker. And "layman" is an appalling disambiguator. Every Louis Martin we have was a layman (i.e. none was a member of the clergy). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm plumping for "layman" as disambiguator. I'll have to disagree that he's known only for being beatified. People don't just get beatified, and would usually have done something to warrant the honour. In this case I'd say it was his spirituality as opposed to his watchmaking. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you possibly use "layman" to disambiguate when all the other Louis Martins are also laymen? What sort of disambiguator is that? Of course he's only known for being beatified. Would we have an article about him if he'd just been a bloke who made watches? Unless he was famous for making watches? Which he isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, that is not the case, in English more than Spanish or French (laymen) clearly indicates a religious figure. None of the other Louis Martin would be (layman)
Sorry, but this is utter rubbish. I've spoken British English all my life and "layman" to me has always specifically meant a non-religious figure. The only two definitions in the OED are: "A man who is not a cleric; one of the laity." and "A man who is an ‘outsider’ or a non-expert in relation to some particular profession, art, or branch of knowledge." Where are you getting this "religious figure" definition from? If you're maybe using it in the sense of a lay brother of an order, then the common term would be just that, not layman. So to say the others are not laymen is completely incorrect (not priests or monks = laymen) and to say Martin was a layman would be exceptionally confusing to almost everyone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
? ...if it is "utter rubbish" why does the definition you've given from OED say exactly what I just said : "A man who is not a cleric; one of the laity." (layman) would indicate "A man who is not a cleric; one of the laity." Louis Martin was "A man who is not a cleric; one of the laity." Louis Martin (A man who is not a cleric; one of the laity). Perfectly clear and works as a dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree that this argument is utter rubbish. It would be perhaps unusual to refer to a person with no religious affiliation as a layman in a religious context, but that's just because the issue is unlikely to arise. If it did, then layman would be the perfectly correct term. And that's exactly what the definition you are quoting says too. Andrewa (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be using conflicting definitions of religious, and perhaps layman. While the latter has a more general meaning as well (cf. "layman's terms"), it usually occurs in a religious context. At least in my experience growing up Protestant, there was a preacher in the pulpit and the people in the pews were laymen. Certainly in that sense it's not a good disambiguator—akin to saying Louis Martin (not part of the clergy). But inasmuch as a layman is a member of the laity, I understand calling him a religious figure. Would we call an atheist a layman? --BDD (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would. It means anyone who isn't a member of the clergy, as the OED clearly states. You don't have to actually be religious to be a layman! However, I would agree that Louis Martin (father of Thérèse of Lisieux), while not a great disambiguator, is probably the best we've got under the circumstances if people don't like the current one (although I don't personally have any problems with that). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware what "laity" means, thank you very much. However, the OED says "layman" means "one of the laity" or "a man who is not a cleric", not "a member of the laity who is not a cleric" (since that would be obvious). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about Blessed Louis Martin as a title? Perhaps it doesn't quite fit the rules, but in this case it seems the obvious title, so perhaps the rules are wrong. Andrewa (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't think it's a great IAR case, but it does seem a WP:NATURAL improvement over the status quo. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have at least rough consensus that the current title needs to be changed. The one oppose vote is against the two proposed disambiguators (watchmaker) and (layman). Relisting to allow discussion of other possible titles. Andrewa (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose new suggestion, stick with proposals - sorry Andrewa, fundamentally this new title is as much a problem as the current dab, BDD made a good proposal, no need to reduce it to move to a title that still breaks WP:Honorific when there are two perfectly good alternatives which do not break any guidelines. Necrothesp I hope will drop this objection to the OED definition of (layman), BDDs original second choice, and if not then BDD's third suggestion Louis Martin (father of Thérèse of Lisieux) should be the move as the one which no one has objected to, and in fact the best fit for most of WP:CRITERIA. sorry forgot to sign In ictu oculi (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, you're entitled to your opinions. And my suggestion was a rather muted one, hence the comment flag. I do see the problems with it.
And, I take it you agree that we have consensus that some change is desirable.
And I'm even less comfortable about all of the other suggestions to date. Agree that Louis Martin (father of Thérèse of Lisieux) is the best yet that doesn't violate WP:Honorific. But disagree that there are two perfectly good alternatives which do not break any guidelines. There's no way that either of the two original suggestions could be called recognizable to readers (WP:AT of course), IMO. And if that's true, then they both do break... guidelines, and in spades.
But Louis Martin (father of Thérèse of Lisieux) is quite a mouthful. I think it would be worth breaking WP:Honorific on this occasion, and go with the natural and well-attested title instead.
Unless we can do better of course. I still hope we can. Lateral thinking required. Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Louis Martin (lay brother). It's not an ideal title, but it does seem to be roughly accurate and better than anything else I've seen suggested here. — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My ranking of the suggestions to date, best to worst:
Blessed Louis Martin still my favourite, but your own ideas are always wonderful, and it does require appeal to WP:IAR
(but there is now doubt that it does require WP:IAR, perhaps even consensus that it does not, see below) Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Joseph Martin or Louis Stanislas Martin, particularly if we can get more attestations of one or the other... we have one of each so far. [1]Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Martin (lay brother) is a close second
No longer second, see above. Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(but may be misleading, see IIO's comment below) Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Martin (father of Thérèse of Lisieux) acceptable but awkward
Louis Martin (layman) not really acceptable, unrecognisable
(and also ambiguous, see below) Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Martin (blessed) awkward, general consensus that we can do better
Louis Martin (watchmaker) the worst suggestion to date, completely unrecognisable
(perhaps I should have said the worst serious suggestion, see below for some straw men) Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other opinions? I think you could logically derive that ranking from my comments above, but I thought it helpful to untangle it for clarity.
I see no merit in raising a new RM unless we have a strong contender for the target, which we don't yet, nor in closing this one without raising a new one unless we have consensus to stick to the status quo, which we don't, or no hope of consensus to do anything, which we're not at yet and hopefully won't get to. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listing out those options. In a discussion like this it usually ends up with a conclusion which is everyone's second or third choice, but no one's first choice. My initial feeling about Louis Martin (father of Thérèse of Lisieux) was that it is too long, but the reality is that Louis Martin's notability is inherited, and in terms of WP:CRITERIA RECOGNISABILITY is head and shoulders above all others... no one will type (father of..), but no one will type (blessed...) either. We can all go on about the Wikipedia guideline somewhere which says "notability is not inherited" but in the real world it is, as many infant royal death stubs on en.wp confirm. Louis Martin's main claim to fame, as with Florence Nightingale's father, was his daughter, dress it up as we may. I still don't really see how anyone can read Louis Martin (layman) as anything but the religious sense, rather than [Louis Martin (science layman)], [Louis Martin (legal non-specialist)], the historical meaning of layman has always primarily been religious, as laity today still only has one meaning. "Catholic layman" and "Catholic lay brother" are two different things. I see no evidence in the article or in sources that he ever became a lay brother, he ended his days as Louis Martin (Catholic layman), never having been received into any order (I searched on all the expected terms, Franciscan, Dominican, Jesuit). We cannot use (lay brother), he never was. If we really think layman can be misread in a non-religious sense then Louis Martin (Catholic layman) would make it clear we mean religion. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that Louis Martin's notability is inherited. Beatification itself is sufficient evidence of notability, isn't it?
I admit ignorance of exactly what lay brother would mean in this instance... why do you say he was not one? Remembering this is in terms of WP:AT rather than any particular community or authority's usage of it. What we want is a disambiguator that will maximise the chance that a person looking for that article will look at a list of search hits and say "That's him!" accurately.
And what would your ordering be, and where do you draw the line between acceptable and not?
I agree that what we are likely to get will be predominantly second or third choices, and I think that's OK. We'll get a rough consensus that one of them is better than the current one, and acceptance that we can't agree on a better one, and then go with that one. Andrewa (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re the layman thing. Do we actually know that none of the other Louis Martins who have articles were religious men? Because under In ictu oculi's definition, any of them who was was also a layman. Yet he states that none of them were, in fact, "laymen". I'm not sure how he knows, to be honest. It is therefore, under any definition, a very poor disambiguator. Louis Martin (Catholic) would actually be a better option than Louis Martin (layman), since that at least specifies which denomination he was a layman of, and that would be a very poor disambiguator indeed. Personally I'd be happy with Blessed Louis Martin as natural disambiguation, but I know from past experience that some editors have problems with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and I'd add that IIO's definition isn't the only one we need to consider. To many, a religious layman is anyone who isn't a religious. In this (probably more popular) sense, Louis Martin (swimmer) was most likely another Roman Catholic layman. He represented France in the 1900 Olympics, France at that time still being predominantly Roman Catholic, and there's no suggestion that he was a religious. So (layman) would popularly be applied to him too, which makes it ambiguous, and therefore inadequate, as a disambiguator for Louis Martin. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the only problem yet raised with this name (already a redirect here) is that it (possibly, see below) violates WP:HONORIFIC.
First question: Is it true that there are no other objections to this name?
Second question: Assuming the answer to the first question is "yes", doesn't that make it a perfect example of a case in which WP:IAR should be invoked?
Third question: And in any case, in that WP:HONORIFIC starts out In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name... (my emphasis) and continues There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included... (my emphasis), does Blessed Louis Martin really violate it at all? Do we even need WP:IAR?
I first suggested it in a sort of desperation, as the other possibilities all seemed to have big problems. But I'm beginning to warm to it. Its problems are not as great as I first thought, and there are unanswered problems with all other suggestions so far. Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He seems to be commonly referred to as "Blessed Louis Martin", so I don't think we violate WP:HONORIFIC by failing to follow the general rule here. Neljack (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm more and more interested in the first question. We now have two policy-based arguments in favour of Blessed Louis Martin. Are there any at all against it?
If not, perhaps we can form a consensus here supporting it. One other contributor above has already said that it's an improvement on the current title Louis Martin (blessed). Do we at least have consensus on that? Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would take any alternative that has been discussed here as an improvement, excepting of course the obvious straw men/examples IIO and I brought up. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you mean Louis Martin (Catholic) and Louis Martin (Catholic layman) as the straw men, although only one of them was proposed by IIO as far as I can see. Assuming that's the case, agree that neither is worthy of serious consideration. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be rough consensus so far that Blessed Louis Martin is an improvement on the current title Louis Martin (blessed). The exception is the strong oppose from IIO above, see #Usage below.
So, fourth question: Is there any hope of consensus that any of the other proposed titles are an improvement?
The logic here is of course that if we have consensus that Blessed Louis Martin is a better title than the current one, and no hope of consensus that any other title would be an improvement, then the move to Blessed Louis Martin should take place. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as above I'm afraid I do not share this view, and strongly oppose "Blessed Louis Martin" as much worse, it implies this title exists, Louis Martin (blessed) just implies a bad en.wp dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. I don't see how you can imply that the title does not exist in the face of the evidence, and hope that we can still come to a rough consensus. Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IIO above says strongly oppose Blessed Louis Martin as unsupported in Google Books and even more honorific than the present title. [2] However they give no evidence that it's unsupported, or even exactly what they mean by this. Does it mean that there are no attestations found, or just that there are fewer than some other search? What exactly were the searches that brought them to this conclusion?
So it would be very interesting to see the evidence that it's unsupported. It's certainly used.
The honorific argument is better discussed in the more general section #Blessed Louis Martin above. Andrewa (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted IIO a heads-up [3]. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason google.au above seems to be given slightly inflated numbers. I'm still getting zero in Google books; "blessed Louis Martin" gets 1 confirmed book hit in an evidently POV religious book. [Therese "Louis Martin was"] gets 309 book results. "of Louis Martin" + Therese gets 432 GB. In any case we cannot use this title because of WP:HONORIFIC which overrides WP:COMMONNAME, which this evidently is very far from common. This is the second worst solution listed (ahead only of watchmaker) and is contrary to WP:RS WP:COMMONNAME WP:HONORIFIC. Louis Martin (Catholic layman) is far better than this. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you for replying. And thanks for the links.
Before we get to the specifics regarding the Google searches, may I question the logic? You're getting zero in Google books. Why do the searches differ? You assume that my results are inflated, but it could equally be that your searches are somehow missing relevant hits. Google's results are sometimes a bit strange in my experience.
(Which is one reason it's good, in my view even essential, to supply links whenever arguing from Google results.)
And in this case a reason for the difference is easily found. Your Google book search link is http://www.google.fr/... which is of course French Google. That's probably why you're getting so few hits on an English phrase.
I'm also a bit suspicious of your dismissal of the one source you did find in Google books... can you be specific? Even a POV source can be useful in determining usage. We're not swallowing their POV just because we observe their usage of English.
Let's also look at the results my search turns up. Can we dismiss them too? I don't think so. Here are the first three I got in Google Books:
Now, probably these are also by people who are interested in Saints and the like... religious people, if you like. But can we just dismiss their evidence for that reason? I don't think so. People of these beliefs are the very people most likely to be looking for such an article in Wikipedia. To disqualify their usage of English from consideration in choosing our article title would be like disqualifying my usage of the phrase Sydney Harbour just because I'm Australian.
As you're also unconvinced regarding WP:HONORIFIC I think we should start a section of its own at #Honorifics below. Andrewa (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IIO above argues again In any case we cannot use this title because of WP:HONORIFIC which overrides WP:COMMONNAME[4].
At the risk of repeating myself, there are three problems with this argument.
One is that if WP:HONORIFIC were to be the only impediment to the use of Blessed Louis Martin, this would then be an excellent reason for invoking WP:IAR and also for tweaking WP:HONORIFIC. The article naming rules are just there to help us to get the best possible article titles. This particular rule seems to be getting in our way in trying to do that, so we should both ignore it for now and clarify it as soon as we can to better address this particular case.
(IIO of course also questions that Blessed Louis Martin is in common usage, but that's a discussion for the preceding section.)
The second is that there's no agreement that WP:HONORIFIC even as it stands is a problem here, see above. (But the fact that IIO thinks there is a problem is sufficient reason to want to clarify the rule, even if we have rough consensus that the rule is not a problem as it stands.)
And a third problem that only arises from that latest comment of IIO... does WP:HONORIFIC really override WP:COMMONNAME? I think that probably needs clarification too. Andrewa (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can't close this myself, but at the risk of arguing from silence it seems to me that we have a rough consensus on Blessed Louis Martin. IIO's three arguments are all answered in terms of evidence and policy, and while I was hoping they would change their mind in view of this, I don't see the benefit in spending a lot more time on this.
Very interested in other views. The alternative is to close as no consensus but I think we do have consensus that there should be a move, and no better target.
Be warned that if the move does go ahead, I'll then be using this discussion as an example of the need to clarify WP:HONORIFIC. Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have any strong feelings about HONORIFIC, but I don't think this is a good case for changing it one way or another. If we end up adding the honorific in this title (or really, just moving it), it will be more from a lack of other options than anything else. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see that "IIO's arguments are all answered" - I have been opposing Blessed Louis Martin on the basis of WP:HONORIFIC and will continue to do so. WP:HONORIFIC is crystal clear and stands on one of the WP:Five pillars of Wikipedia which is NPOV:
My logic is that this name is (1) not used in print sources and (2) breaks WP:HONORIFIC. Please look at both the sources (lack of) and WP:HONORIFIC again. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but...
(1) You only get the result that it's not used by being overly selective in the sources you allow. The usage of the phrase in devotional material, for example, is relevant here, but you reject it out of hand [5]. We would not regard these sources as reliable in their views on biology, for example, or probably even on history, but to reject their theology is highly POV.
(And this would probably be better discussed at #Usage above, where I give a great deal of evidence to which you have not replied. Some but not all of it is devotional. All of it is probably religious (in the broader sense). Umm, he's a religious figure. This doesn't make him non-notable, nor the sources not reliable, as Wikipedia uses the terms.) Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(2a) As I've said several times (see below for example), you're the only one who interprets WP:HONORIFIC in this extreme way. I have done some rereading, actually I accepted your reading at first (see above), but on closer examination changed my mind (see above). I hope you're doing some rereading too. The variant readings we have of WP:HONORIFIC (by you, me and others) make your claim that it's crystal clear a rather peculiar one. The evidence is strong that it's not nearly clear enough.
(2b) As I've also said before, even if we do interpret WP:HONORIFIC in that way, that would just indicate that we need to invoke WP:IAR for now and clarify WP:HONORIFIC in due course. It already explicitly allows Mother Theresa. As I also said above (Be warned... etc), if this move goes ahead, I'll be proposing it should also explicitly allow Blessed when required for natural disambiguation, or something along those lines, to remove the problem that concerns you so much. Andrewa (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you seem to be the only one who reads WP:HONORIFIC in this extreme way. Several editors, myself included, don't see it as a show-stopper at all. And how is using this honorific POV? Surely you're not saying that there is doubt or controversy that he's referred to by this name?
Or is this perhaps the real issue? Do you disapprove of the process of beatification, and therefore want such honorifics to be avoided? I'm trying to assume good faith but struggling to understand some of your logic (see above) and the heat with which you are arguing. (I'm not a Roman Catholic myself, just BTW.) Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have of course every right to invoke move review. But I don't see the point in foreshadowing it. Hopefully, whoever closes this RM will examine the arguments and ignore this particular challenge. Andrewa (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to BDD in case the stringing is not clear) Agree totally. That's why I was asking for lateral thinking above, and we seem to finally have some below. Andrewa (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said ""Blessed Louis Martin" gets 1 hit in Google Books, in a religious devotional book" in fact that may well be a misread, such as all 37 of the sources User:Andrewa linked in Google Books. Andrewa, a possible reason why the 37 "Blessed Louis Martin" results show not a single inline text quotation "Blessed Louis Martin" - and where we have no page scan/clipping in Google Books is that they may not be there, and these are indexing shadows. Google Books Advanced Search gets 12, again with none showing any text hit "Blessed Louis Martin". In contrast "Louis Martin was" produces 215. Opening one of those 37 supposed hits, Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Saints by Matthew Bunson, Stephen Bunson on p496 there is in fact no entry for a "Louis Martin, Blessed" between Louis Maki, Blessed and Louis Naisen, Blessed ..though it's possible the phrase "Blessed Louis Martin" occurs in the Saint Therese of Liseux entry. In any case these remain totally unsuitable devotional sources when we have academic NPOV sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above regarding this selective use of sources. Andrewa (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patricia O'Connor uses "Louis Joseph Martin" in Thérèse of Lisieux: A Biography and "Louis Stanislas Martin" is used in Reluctant Heroine: The Life and Work of Hélène Duhem by Stanley Jaki. Perhaps one of these options could be used? DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both good suggestions. Thank you! I would still put Blessed Louis Martin at the top of the list, but these would come just after it, that is above all other suggestions so far and 'way above the current title. Or that's my initial response. Not sure which of them I prefer, I'd almost certainly go for whichever of them is the more common. Other comments on these? Andrewa (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just refer to him as he is referred to in books? Why are we having this wall of text when all the books describe him in one simple way, by his main notable feature, father of Therese of Lisieux. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ideal, but it is an improvement. We're already disambiguating this article with an honorific, but awkwardly and not NATURALly. If it's going to take incremental change to get to the ideal title here, so be it. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I hope the others will reply too. If IIO has support in their interpretation of WP:HONORIFIC then my (2b) above would still apply, but obviously it weakens my argument at least a little. Andrewa (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above (top of the #Discussion section), I'd regard father of Therese of Lisieux as an acceptable disambiguator, but barely. Disagree that this is his main notable feature. As you pointed out above, notability is not inherited, so in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word this is not a notable feature at all. His most notable feature is his beatification, in my opinion, but I do note that you in turn seem to argue above that beatification is not a notable feature at all, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added these latest suggestions to the personal ranking with which I began the #Discussion section [6]. Perhaps we should relist again? There have been some relevant contributions here in the last few days, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IIO above raises the question of POV regarding sources [7][8], rejecting out of hand all those that are not academic, and illustrating their remarks on one occasion with the graphic at left referring to the five pillars and also referring to WP:COMMONNAME.
While this all sounds very reasonable, it's the exact opposite of what WP:NPOV says. Its nutshell reads Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. (My emphasis.) The article title, surely, is covered by how you say it.
Similarly with WP:COMMONNAME, which reads in part Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. (My emphasis.) There's no suggestion that we should discard all but academic sources in coming to our conclusions. If there were, we would similarly discard all newspapers and almost all websites. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
"Lay brother" is a rank in a monastery or religious order.
I appreciate the fact that there has been a lot of discussion about this, but if the point of disambiguation is to distinguish him from other Louis Martins, what would be wrong with "Louis Martin (of Lisieux)"? We're not creating a title for him, we're disambiguating. But whatever, "lay brother" is absolutely wrong. He tried to enter a monastery and was not accepted, so he never was a lay brother, and a fortiori did not spend any time of his life as one, or die as one. The phrase "lay brother" is only used in the Catholic church to mean a member of a religious order who is not a cleric. It does not mean a member of the Catholic church who is not a cleric.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.. He and his wife recognized as members of Secular Franciscans (the third order): [9] -- Ign christian (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hello. The moment I saw these two articles I thought the same thing. They should be merged together into a page entitled Louis and Marie-Azélie Martin. There is significant intersection with the information in the two articles as they currently exist. Moreover, the current title of this article with the disambiguation ("lay brother") will be avoided. I will add templates to advertize the merge and we'll go through the process as outlined on WP:MERGE. — AJDStalk 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.. Thanks for your comments. In addition, I think we should do the same thing on beatified or canonized couples. I'll leave the merger process to editor using English as the first languange. :D Ign christian (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. ... So it's been two months since the original suggestion, and a full 17 days since I chimed in, and no one's shown up to object. I'm going to do the merger. — AJDStalk 09:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
