Talk:John Walter (editor, born 1776)

Untitled

Would John Walter II or John Walter, Jr. be more appropriate? john k 23:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. These are American naming conventions, which are not used very much in the UK. NRPanikker 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2015

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: moved to John Walter (editor, born 1776). There was a pretty clear consensus against simply using dates and this alternative got the most support. Other proposals will be created as redirects. I'd recommend starting RMs for the father and son, or someone can be bold if they think their change will stick, but I didn't exactly see a consensus here for how they should be dab'd. Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

---

John Walter (second) → John Walter (1776–1847) – existing name is neither informative or helpful, especially seeing as there are now more than one John Walter at wikipedia. Alternates would be John Walter, the younger, and rename his father to John Walter, the elder — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to John Walter (second editor of the Times) I can't see a way of having anything but a long dab here, years aren't helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to John Walter (editor, born 1776). Actually saying what he's notable for is more helpful than just providing dates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment there's also the problem with John Walter (third) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there's also the problem with John Walter (publisher), since all three can be called publishers -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Alternate moves move John Walter (publisher) to John Walter I, John Walter (second) to John Walter II, John Walter (third) to John Walter III -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Since they're not know by those names, that's not an option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• Relisting comment. Clear consensus to move but not so clear on where exactly to. Further discussion required. Jenks24 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • At this point even just voting on a proposed variant without a rationale (though obviously one would be ideal) would be beneficial to someone trying to close this. Jenks24 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support years of birth and death for the second and third per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles (the son and grandson appear to be usually disambiguated using the dates; it is natural to write them with dates in order to disambiguate; and they are not usually disambiguated any other way) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating (when people have the same name and tag, dates may be used). Recommend John Walter (founder of The Times) for the first; the problem only really arises for the latter two since they were both newspaper proprietors, managers and politicians (sitting as MPs for the same seats). DrKay (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend a combination of profession and date here. Especially for such a generic name, dates alone are unlikely to be very helpful (NCPDAB: "readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it"). --BDD (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If that were the case, then your suggestion for the grandfather is worse than my suggestion because searchers would know him as the founder of The Times (because that's why they would be looking) but they would not know that he died in 1812. DrKay (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly following WP:D, which says qualifiers should be precise and non-unique. (founder of The Times) would be recognizable, but it wouldn't be either of those. That doesn't mean we can't use it, of course. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it's imprecise, nor do I see that it's any less unique than "publisher, died 1812". DrKay (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, concise, not precise. I'm sure you're correct that there aren't other "published, died 1812" qualifiers ("publisher", of course, is fairly standard, and then it's just a matter of further disambiguation being needed). Perhaps I'm being too dogmatic. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"founder of the Times" and "publisher, died 1812" are both 20 characters long, so they are equally concise (or not). DrKay (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support John Walter (editor, born 1776) per Necrothesp and WP:NCPDAB. I'd suggest John Walter (publisher, died 1812) for his father and John Walter (publisher, born 1818) for his son. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support BDD's suggestions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:23, 14 September 2015 (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.