Talk:Emma Little-Pengelly

Noel Little

I personally have no objection to describing Noel Little as a terrorist. However Wikipedia requires that article are written from a neutral point of view. Please could everyone abide by this protocol? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sortkey

Just a note here regarding the "DEFAULTSORT" key, because I've already had to correct it twice in just three days because somebody reinserted the wrong one after the first correction.

The DEFAULTSORT key does not affect how the article title displays, either here or in the category list; it only affects where the title lands in the alphabetical list. So the sortkey has to be based on information present in the title — if the sortkey here is "Little", for example, then all that does is cause the title "Emma Pengelly" to appear under the letter L instead of the letter P, which is incorrect. It does not cause the title to appear as "Emma Little Pengelly" in the category listing.

If you want her sorted under "Little", then you need to move the page to the title "Emma Little Pengelly". But as long as it remains at "Emma Pengelly" the sortkey has to be "Pengelly", because the sortkey has to be based on the page's actual title and not on alternate information not present in the title. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2017

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: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 06:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Emma Pengelly → Emma Little Pengelly – Prodecural nomination — I'm filing this request on behalf of a user who does not know how to complete the process themself. The subject does appear to use the surname "Little Pengelly" rather than just "Pengelly" — but reliable source coverage about her seems split between both forms, so I'm not prepared to just arbitrarily move it on my own, especially since I'm not hugely knowledgeable about UK/NI politics and got involved only through generic wikicleanup rather than having much personal knowledge of her. I have no opinion either way on the merits, but wanted to raise it for discussion since it was requested in good faith. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: On the ballot paper and on her official twitter account she is known as Emma "Little-Pengelly". I would support moving the page to "Emma Little-Pengelly". Brythones (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: I would support moving her page to Emma Little-Pengelly based on her official Twitter account Katie960 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Users are far too quick to put what they think is the person's known name. If she puts Emma Little-Pengelly on her own literature I think that is definitiveBashereyre (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Support. I moved this page to Emma Little Pengelly some time ago, but somebody moved it back for some reason. Mooretwin (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Mary (source and placement)

Hi. On 2 Nov 2024, an editor added "Mary" to the birthname parameter in the infobox - relying only on a passing remark in a tweet by the subject. On the same day, I "fixed up" this reference while highlighting a concern as to whether the tweet (which does fall within WP:ABOUTSELF) can be interpreted as a reliable/definitive statement that Mary forms part of the subject's birthname. On 10 Nov 2024, an editor added "Mary" to form part of the lead. Making it the first word in the article.

Per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, the handling of the subject's name is covered by MOS:NAMES. Which expects that full names are normally only included when they are widely known. Or needed for disambiguation. Neither seemingly being the case here.

In all honesty, even if that WP:ABOUTSELF tweet can be definitively/reliably interpreted as confirmation that "Mary" forms part of the subject's birthname (and I'm not sure it is), is it really needed in the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE/MOS:NAME intro? As the first word in the article? Guliolopez (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, editor who restored this to lead weighing in. I'm looking at MOS:NAMES and what I'm seeing is; The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information. The most complete form of the subject's name is Mary Emma Little-Pengelly, so this is in line with the MOS. What you're citing regarding "widely known" or "disambiguation" appears to be about middle names rather than full names, per the MOS page. Re WP:ABOUTSELF, I'm not seeing any reason why the tweet can't be used as a citation. It's about the subject herself and only the subject, isn't self-serving nor exceptional, does not involve any claims about unrelated events, gives us no reason to doubt its' authenticity and the article is not primarily based on this tweet. That's all five points met. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 07:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In terms of MOS:NAMES, my interpretation is that unused (and largely unknown?) parts of a person's given name (whether their unused first name or unused middle name) wouldn't normally be included. I mean, we're not talking about Paul McCartney for example, where it's well known that he doesn't go by his "actual" first name.

My main concern however (as noted when I left but tagged the entry in the infobox) is our interpretation of that tweet. As you note, and as already acknowledged by me (more than once), if the tweet stated that Mary was part of the subject's given name or birth name then WP:ABOUTSELF would cover it. We are to my mind, however, "interpreting" what is said in that (single/short) tweet snippet. Which, for all we know, could refer to a nickname or confirmation name or whatever.

Anyway, it's not a rock I'm gonna die on. But I really do think that something relatively fundamental (like someone's name and the first word in the article) would ideally be based on something more reliable than an interpretation of 4-5 words from a single tweet. Esp where that tweet is substantially about something else.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

From my own experience, most of the articles of people using their middle names in lieu of first name, well known or not (thinking to similar political examples, we have Mary Elizabeth Truss, James Gordon Brown, and across the sea, Raymond Jon Tester for three) have included them as the first name in the lead. Of course, other stuff does exist, but I'd believe this is the result of MOS:NAMES being applied as such.

I see your point regarding the interpretation of the tweet, though I personally would have interpreted it as a fairly clearcut reference to it being her name. Of course it's not impossible that it's a nickname (though confirmation name is much less likely I'd reckon; usually they go in the middle so it'd be "Emma Mary", and I'm not too sure if the Protestants up north undergo confirmation as we do), but it feels like the most reasonable explanation to me. But like yourself, I'm not dead set on it, so I guess we can see if anyone watching the talk page has thoughts on this.

On a side note, I genuinely was not aware Paul McCartney went by his middle name until your message. Every day's a school day... ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)