Talk:Pop Laval

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Requested move 3 October 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 Pop Laval. Common name is not the be-all and end-all, especially in cases like this where there are few sources and those few have mixed usage. In this case, the consensus is that a slightly less common name is preferable due to our other naming criteria. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claude "Pop" Laval → Claude Laval or Pop Laval – No embedded nicknames in article titles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed formatting of the move request. Natg 19 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I found two 21st-century sources using the current name: [1][2][3]. I could not find sources using the proposed name. Same for "Pop Laval". --George Ho (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). It is the Wikipedia style to not embed nicknames, despite how others use it. The rule reads "Notable distinctions can be explained in the article, but avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name. For example: Bill Clinton, not William "Bill" Clinton." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Richard. Policy may overrule guideline; WP:TITLEFORMAT says that quotation marks, normally avoided, can be used as part of title or orthography. Also, WP:COMMONNAMES encourage the current name. --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This is not the form we use on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Changing Robert John "Mutt" Lange was attempted but didn't work. Perhaps Ed "Too Tall" Jones and Donald "Buz" Lukens proved also that base names do not work out. Also, WP:TITLEFORMAT says: "An exception is made when the quotation marks are part of a name or title." The policy allows exceptions as long as sources use quotes. Changing to "Claude Laval" would make the title ambiguous, and WP:COMMONNAMES discourages ambiguous names ("Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided, even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." I could point out WP:NATURAL, but we should have had Claude Laval Corporation. There are other people of the same name: [4]. George Ho (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those RMs had many contributors (Lukens had only one!) and should probably be revisited in any case. Look at all our gangster articles (e.g. Legs Diamond, Baby Face Nelson). These are people who are very frequently referred to popularly as 'X "Y" Z'. None of their article titles are in this format, however. Because we have decided that this is not encyclopaedic. How is there ambiguity when he's the only Claude Laval on whom we have an article? We do not disambiguate unless we have another article of the same name; we never disambiguate because we might have another article of a similar name in the future. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about less notable photographer, Necrothesp. Notably, he has not been commonly called "Claude Laval" or "Pop Laval". As said, no sources refer to him as such. We can't take out a quoted nickname; that goes against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL, which forbids made-up or obscure names. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks about "Legs Diamond". I'll propose a move soon. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the WP:NICKNAME admonition not to use nicknames in quotes between first and last name when in keeping with WP:COMMONNAMES. Note the example of William "Bill" Clinton. Clinton is commonly known in sources as "Bill Clinton" and is less commonly but legally known as "William Clinton". He is not commonly known as "William ‘Bill’ Clinton" so the article should not use this title. However, in some of the other cases mentioned above, the subject is commonly known by the name that includes both the first name and the nickname (in quotes). Robert John "Mutt" Lange is more commonly known by that sequence than by "Robert John Lange" or by "Mutt Lange" in both sources and his own output. Therefore, the title should include the quoted nickname per WP:COMMONNAMES. I would lean toward a move in the Claude/Pop Laval case since the article's sources both use simply "Pop Laval" in the text. However, in general sources on him are too few and mixed to overtly support it. — AjaxSmack 01:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AjaxSmack and Richard: I found Claude Laval, French ambassador and Claude Laval, an archbishop. I'm unsure about this source except that it's from 1950s. As said, usage is inconsistent because the guy is lesser known. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 19:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Pop Laval per these sources: [5] -Mike Cline (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Mike, there are three sources mainly using Pop Laval as part of titles. Claude Pop Laval is used by five sources. Results using Claude Laval does not mention this person. George Ho (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear. I am not in favor of a title with "Pop" in quotes, thus I believe Pop Laval is the best title. Obviously Claude Laval is not. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike: Applying WP:COMMONNAMES to some lesser known person makes a mockery of the well-intended policy. I think we should shift to WP:PAG#Adherence: use common sense and then make some exceptions to this. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: - As I pondered closing this RM over the last week, I came to the conclusion that discussions such as these are essentially intractable given all the tensions we've created via Common Name, MOS and Disambiguation, et al. As a very young boy in the late 1950s, Elroy Hirsch of the Rams was a favorite player and was playing at my first ever pro football game I attended when my grandfather took me to a game in the LA Coliseum. He came to mind during this RM and despite having known him as Elroy "Crazylegs" Hirsch my entire life, I had no trouble finding his article nor was I confused when I got there. You may not agree with my position on this, but it is still never the else, clear as a bell. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, thanks for bringing up the football player. However, he is nothing compared to some photographer. There are additional guidelines on football players, like WP:naming conventions (sportspeople). Meanwhile, there is no special convention on photographers; we have general rules that seem... ambiguous, even when clear. George Ho (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2015 (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.