Talk:Richard Worsam Meade III

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

Requested move 18 September 2018[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: (non-admin closure) No Consensus. After a month, there is no consensus for any specific name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– There does not seem to be a clear primary topic. WP:JR/SR only recommends to "use ordinals if they are commonly used in reliable sources", which is not the case for the eldest Richard Worsam Meade; I haven't found any that do this. This move then, uses the preferred name for him, natural disambiguation for the youngest Meade, and puts three articles in a logical and readily-understood sequence: Richard Worsam Meade, Richard Worsam Meade II (no change), Richard Worsam Meade III. A hatnote at Richard Worsam Meade for both descendants is better than making that a disambiguation page. Kim Post (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Was the 3rd known as Richard Worsam Meade III? --Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just from a cursory look: he's listed that way on the Naval History & Heritage Command page on which the article is based, which says he was also called Meade Jr. And he's given the number (at least according to WorldCat) in American National Biography. He does not have the number on his gravestone, and the Dictionary of American Biography doesn't give anyone ordinals. For the elder Meade, the sources give him either as "Richard W. Meade" or "Richard Worsam Meade". Kim Post (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the general idea that none of them is WP:PTOPIC.
Counterproposal. A usual solution in cases like this is to make the name a {{hndis}} page, and to qualify each individual as (birthyear-deathyear). That gets round both any WP:OR problems in generating numerals, and complications such as Richard Worsam Meade II being called in the sources Richard Worsam Meade Sr. when he was the second of that name. It also avoids the well-known problem that PTOPICs slowly but inevitably collect bad incoming links which are very difficult to spot and to correct. Narky Blert (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCPDAB seems to suggest using years of birth or death is an option of last resort. It sacrifices conciseness and naturalness for precision. When the articles appear together in a list, this scheme also wouldn't communicate the men's relationship. Is the creation of a disambiguation preferable when the relationship can be clearly expressed in a hatnote? Then there is at least a chance that readers searching without ordinals end up at the correct article right away, and at worst they come to a related article. Kim Post (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That can be addressed by {{hndis}} descriptions such as "Richard Worsam Meade (1807-1890) (AKA Richard Worsam Meade, Sr.), officer in the United States Navy, son of the above, father of the below". Narky Blert (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as the most unwieldy solution of all--which is probably why the naming convention discourages it. (The guideline also recommends only using either birth or death year if this approach is taken, not both.) Do you have a specific opposition to my suggestion? I can look for more sources which do or do not use the ordinals, if that would allay your concerns. Kim Post (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1st move; neutral/oppose 2nd - Doesn't seem like EITHER ONE is the primary topic of "Richard Worsam Meade", so a disambiguation page should occupy the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that neither is a primary topic, but I suggest the second move because the sources don't give ordinals to the first Richard W. Meade, and a hatnote at the page would more conveniently serve the same purpose as a disambiguation page. I'm operating on the premise that avoiding a disambiguation page when possible is desirable. Kim Post (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 22 September 2018 (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.

Requested move 14 December 2018[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 08:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Worsam Meade → Richard Worsam Meade III – I'd like to restart the brief recent discussion with a simpler proposal. With no clear primary topic, I hope we can reach a consensus merely that this move, with the base name being a disambiguation page, is better than the status quo. Sources supporting the use of "III":

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Worsam_Meade_III&oldid=1202251482"