Talk:Edward Clancy (cardinal)

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

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) —innotata 18:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:PRIMARYNAME James (T • C) • 3:13 PM • 05:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He needn't be a cardinal now for us to use that as a disambiguator. See, e.g., the disambiguators used for John Smith. Dekimasuよ! 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NATURAL, I prefer Edward Bede Clancy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preference list:
Oppose:
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Being a Roman Catholic cardinal from Australia is not as prominent as being a mayor of one Massachusetts city Lynn, not Boston. Even when Australia is notable country more than Lynn is a notable city, this should not excuse the circumstances. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size and population won't matter in this case. Who's more notable: some church figure from big country or a leader of the small city? As for the title of the article itself, I have no preference except opposing the topic as "primary topic". --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I had presumed that this Edward Clancy was the only notable Edward Clancy, so I just read the disambiguation page Edward Clancy, discovered Why George cares about Lynn, and see that a better disambiguation title for this EC is Edward Bede Clancy. I presume that this article was originally suffixed with "(cardinal)" to increase recognizability, as this cardinal has been well known as being a Roman Catholic, one particularly notable for association a Sydney supervised injection site.[1] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly oppose move to primary topic. Looking at the months before August of this year (to avoid the effects of WP:Recentism caused by the cardinal's death) there does not seem to be much of a difference in page views, and there is certainly not the disparity we would expect for a primary topic. Not sure yet about including Bede in the middle name -- I'm not really sure why it's necessary, as (Cardinal) is a perfectly good disambiguation term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that sentiment. Disambiguators, in whatever guise they appear, are meant to make it clear to a random reader just which person of this name the article is about. Some Australian Catholics and maybe a few others might know that this Edward Clancy's middle name was Bede, but for the VAST majority of readers such information is as useful as tits on a bull, because they still won't know whether "Edward Bede Clancy" is the cardinal they were looking for, or whether he was a renowned Paraguayan xylophone player or a noted Kazakh astrologer or whatever. As the title stands now, it is abundantly clear who this guy is. I am abstaining on the question of a move to Edward Clancy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Edward Bede Clancy beats Edward Clancy (cardinal) as natural disambiguation is preferred. Middle name use is most common for the deceased, which this person has become. "Official" sources use it.[2] If "cardinal" is desired, Cardinal Edward Clancy would be the choice to make, per WP:NATURAL and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. That WP:HONORIFICS applies discourages natural use of honorific titles, but not parenthetical use, seems odd, like an oversight, to me. This aversion to the real-world style of disambiguating names using middle names also is peculiar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe natural disambiguation is preferable to using the common name -- that's why we have cases like George Clinton (musician) and George Clinton (vice president). I'm also not sure where you're getting the idea that we use middle names for the dead, or that they lose their best known role -- Pope John Paul II was still a pope after all! The reason why we don't have any guidelines against titles in disambiguations is that they cover two separate issues, naming versus disambiguation by the most significant characteristic. That being said, I haven't actually had a chance to look at the WP:Common name in this case, so perhaps it does include his middle name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, Smokey Joe is engaging in a misreading of WP:NATURAL. I quote: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English. In this case, there is no such commonly-used name as "Edward Bede Clancy". There is a very LITTLE-known name called "Edward Bede Clancy", hence this suggestion doesn't work at all. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yaksar. Natural disambiguation is not preferable to using the common name, it is preferable to using parenthetical disambiguation.
Jack. Why not continue the quote from policy: “If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.” “Edward Bede Clancy” exists , it is not obscure or made up. It *is* used in sources https://www.sydneycatholic.org/about/history/Clancy.shtml. It is not as common as the more common but ambiguous “Edward Clancy”. Agreed, “Edward Bede Clancy” is far less common that “Cardinal Clancy” or “Edward Clancy”, but they are discouraged or not available. A few lines further: “Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible…”. Natural disambiguation is possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we're looking at NATURAL here -- I believe it is meant for somewhat different situations. The examples they give there are for pages like "English" and "Fan". With people, WP:COMMONNAME is the usual policy. People sharing the same name is quite a different issue than the situations posed by having pages at names like English vs. English Language or Tie vs Railroad tie.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:16, 14 October 2014 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edward Clancy (cardinal). 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) 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Clancy_(cardinal)&oldid=1196458952"