This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Neelix, can we get rid of this bloody awful title? Firstly it's a grammatical horror: it should at least be in the possessive form of Hornung's biblio, rather than the painful and abysmal form it currently takes. Secondly, he wasn't Ernest William Hornung, he was E.W Hornung - see the book covers on the page to see how he styled his professional name, and the name under which people know him. The original title of Bibliography of E.W. Hornung was carefully selected when the page was first formed, and I strongly oppose the current form it now uses. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pinging me in this discussion. If Hornung is best known as E.W. Hornung, then why don't we move Ernest William Hornung to E.W. Hornung? Either way, these two article titles should be consistent. What do you find painful, abysmal, or ungrammatical about the current title? The other bibliography articles have had such titles for years. Neelix (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be E.W. Hornung (and I've moved it as such). I find this title painful, abysmal and ungrammatical because it is. It should be in the possessive "E.W. Hornung's bibliography", or "Bibliography of E.W. Hornung". The current form is just wrong, wrong, wrong: as an encyclopaedia we certainly should not be promoting the error and it's a form of title that's bugged me for some time, which is why I had tried to avoid it in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose. Hardly "uncontroversial": in BrEng we do not introduce spaces between initials, so the title if correct on WP:ENGVAR grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it's a basic part of English, it is and Engvar issue, despite not being covered by an American-centred MoS. As to the others, WP:OSE is no basis for slavishly following incorrect usage. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then see about getting the guideline changed. See policyWP:NC regarding consistency. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sinden, I'm not going to get into yet another pissing contest with you, so I suggest we leave a consensus to develop from other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any problem with it the way it is. Obviously Schrod chose to write it that way for a reason. Nothing is set in stone on here, any "policy" is simply invented by nobody more elevated than you or I. As explained on the author talk page, reputable sources don't use E. W.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The guideline being cited in support of this move allows exceptions like this. Per the reliable sources provided in the discussion on the author's page it seems obvious the current title is fine. Hot Stop 19:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The BrEng title is in line with this BrEng article. The spaces look ridiculous (not to mention this nomination!) -- Cassianto (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per weak nomination. Where a guideline says "Generally...", a rationale "per the guideline" isn't good enough, as this is a specific case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's no such rule in British English. DrKiernan (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
? Did you get round to having a look at a couple of the style guides of various media and publishing organisations which state the polar opposite of your opinion? - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already provided in at least two other locations. DrKiernan (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And de-bunked in at least two other locations too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than people having to comment in multiple places, could all further comments please be made at the almost-identical discussion at Talk:E.W. Hornung#Requested move. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 3 March 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.
