| Revision as of 20:59, 19 August 2006 editSaxifrage (talk | contribs)Administrators9,808 editsm →Use of surname v. given name: fmt← Previous edit |
Revision as of 14:24, 21 August 2006 edit undoJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,541 edits courtesy blanking of old discussionNext edit → |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
|| This article was nominated for ] {{#if:July 27, 2006|on July 27, 2006|recently}}. The result of ] was '''no consensus'''. |
|
|| This article was nominated for ] {{#if:July 27, 2006|on July 27, 2006|recently}}. The result of ] was '''no consensus'''. |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
{| class="boilerplate metadata" id="wikipedianarticle" class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|<center>''The subject of this article, ''']''', has edited Misplaced Pages <!--as ], ], ], ], ] and ]''. All of the IP addresses belong to the ], except for the last one, which is owned by the ].-->under various IP addresses.</center> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent changes == |
|
|
What's going on here? One editor inserted a lot of useful biographical information, unsourced but judging by their nature presumably made by the subject of the article. A more recent edit from an IP address identified as belonging to the BBC has removed almost the entire article in what looks very much like vandalism. Is there any reason for this? --] 10:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm the subject of the entry and I removed it as it was inaccurate, offensive, intrusive and inappropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fair enough. It contained a lot of stuff like birthdate, education and so on that the average member of the public wouldn't know, so the assumption is that it was made in good faith by someone who knew what they were talking about, and it's hard to tell who made it when it's just an anonymous IP address doing the edits. |
|
|
|
|
|
:But you are a public figure, you have a large and admiring local and international audience, and you are notable enough that you deserve something more than just a bald mention. The last thing we want to do is to put up inaccurate or defamatory material. --] 20:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have re-written the article, drawing heavily upon Jim's official BBC biography as a source. Further contributions are welcome, but any unsourced material will be removed in accordance with ]. --] 20:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The previous information was taken from Jim's own web site at www.jimhawkins.co.uk and from Jim's broadcasts, all material that is in the public domain. However there was certainly no intent to offend Jim and sincere aplogies if such offence was caused. As with Surgeonsmate the intent was just to give Jim a meaningful entry. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! The warning below this window says that content must be verifiable, and some of what was deleted in January most certainly was not verifiable! |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm Jim, and I'm still not happy about this being here. I've been mulling it over for months, and unless anyone can provide me with a convincing reason why I shouldn't, I'm going to delete this entry in its entirety in 48 hours time. |
|
|
|
|
|
... and I have done so. And I feel much better already. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jim, please take a look at ]. Simply blanking articles is frowned upon in Misplaced Pages even if it's done by the subject. You may nominate this article for deletion if you'd like at ]. --] 00:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I really couldn't care less what Misplaced Pages frowns upon, to be honest, but thanks for initiating the deletion process |
|
|
|
|
|
I *require* the above list of IP addresses to be removed, otherwise I'll take legal advice, as I am doing about the presence of this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
If there was no consensus that this article should be deleted, then that also means (obviously enough) that there was no consensus that the article should be retained. So in the absence of any consensus that the article be retained, I'm calling once again for it to be deleted. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have removed the list of IP addresses in response to the entirely understandable privacy concerns raised by the subject. --] 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I returned the template, inasmuch as no legal action can be essayed against Misplaced Pages in view of its inclusion (if only because the IPs remain in the article's history (or in the talk page history, at which the editor contributing from the IPs averred that he was Hawkins) and inasmuch as it is has been our practice to include such templates (see, e.g., ] and ]), such that, if one disagrees with such practice, it is best that he raise the issue on a page at which a meta-discussion might take place (e.g., ] or ]), in order that many editors might participate in a discussion, from which the nature of any consensus might be inferred. ] 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm removing it again. Two reasons. The first is that such practice is not consistent across Misplaced Pages, and in the absence of a policy or guideline such issues should be decided as appropriate. Second is that it is a matter of courtesy and privacy. Of course the addresses remain in the history, but the casual reader looking for information is not going to see them prominently displayed. |
|
|
:::While I tend to discount the legal possibilities, I also note that the BBC may see this matter differently to random Misplaced Pages editors. Please don't reinset the template without we get more voices on the subject. Perhaps a ] might be the go? --] 18:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, inasmuch as ] is probably one of the most heavily-trafficked by admins and other editors who are active members of the community, I would suggest that a consensus exists toward the proposition that such templates are appropriate, such that, if you think they aren't, a general RfC is in order. The individual contributing via the BBC IPs, ostensibly Hawkins, has consented, by his clicking ''save page'' and consistent with ], to the logging of his IP address, and its being displayed in a template does not substantially infringe on the subject's privacy, especially since the IP is a corporate one, such that no individual expectation of privacy exists. Whilst privacy is a concern under ], it is not absolutely potent and does not militate sufficiently against inclusion as to override an extant consensus; courtesy, of course, is an unencyclopedic concern. At the very least, a ] discussion is in order, and I'll start a thread there in a while... ] 01:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See Jimbo's Wikimania comments on this at the bottom of this page. --] 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The topic has been at the ]. ] 02:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Thanks for your help, Jumbo. I have most certainly not consented to my IP address being logged, but how is it possible to have any dealings with this site without that happening? And I have certainly not consented to such information being prominently flagged up. The IP addresses that were prominently displayed included my personal one, as well as corporate BBC addresses. I realise that some individuals here do not rate courtesy, decency and respect as motives for any action; I'm glad there are one or two who disagree. I notice ATTN Jumbo! that an IP address has reappeared prominently on a talk page associated with this entry; don't ask me where, I don't understand this stuff, but I've just seen it. It's linked to some pompous warning about `vandalism'. Could that be removed, too? jh |
|
|
::::::::When editing without an account, you receive the following warning: |
|
|
:::::::::''As you are not currently logged in, your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history. While you are free to edit without logging in, registering for your own account will conceal your IP address and provide you with many other benefits.'' |
|
|
::::::::I'm removing the template that contains your IP address. bear in mind that anybody can see it by looking at the "history" page, but you pretty well need to be an editor of some experience to find it that way, and in any case, even if you have an account an administrator with the right privileges will be able to see the relevant IP address. This goes for any site, pretty much - IP addresses are logged as a matter of course nowadays. |
|
|
::::::::The warning was put on the talk page for the IP address in case you commit an act of vandalism - we get a lot of vandalism from anonymous IP addresses, even if it is just a a couple of school students using the library computer and writing stuff like "Fred Nerk is a poopy head" "Am Not!". I'm removing the template because I don't think you are likely to be enough of a vandal that anyone is going to go knocking at the door of your ISP to get you to stop. |
|
|
::::::::I've got this page on my watchlist, so I'll see if anybody is mucking around with it. Believe it or not, but there is a hard corps of responsible editors who take biographies of living people seriously, especially given the example set by Jimmy Wales. If anyone starts adding unsourced material to the article, especially if it is negative, it will be removed. We have ways of dealing with this sort of thing. |
|
|
::::::::You might consider opening a Misplaced Pages account and becoming an editor. There are any number of Shropshire articles that need to be written, and we are always looking for good photographs to illustrate them. If you learn more about Misplaced Pages and the way it works, you'll see that it does actually work. --] 09:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::What Jumbo says is correct, although the template is not in case ''you'' commit an act of vandalism, it is in case any one of the users that are on the IP commits an act of vandalism (that particular ] has almost three million (1,000,000) ] customers alone, it looks like your IP is shared but not massively so, maybe dozens to hundreds of users). It is not a personal thing, the template is added whenever possible to ]es. The template helps when communicating with and ] people that have that IP address, so that messages that will not reach their target (dynamic IP addresses) and blocks that would be very disruptive (IPs with many users, like many ] IPs) are not made. Perhaps the template's wording should be changed. Also, as Jumbo said, your IP address is hidden if you sign up for an account. All you have to do is choose a username and a password. You do not have to give any personal information, not even an email address. After you get an account (or after your business here is done), you can ask your internet service provider to give you a new IP address. There is a good chance that they will. However, not much is revealed by your IP address (basically just your internet service provider and whether it is a dynamic, stable or shared address, except perhaps for the very technically sophisticated), especially when you are not keeping who you are a secret. Besides keeping your IP address hidden in the history of pages, signing up for an account would allow you to send and receive email and obviate the need to post your IP address after your comments. All talk pages posts are supposed to be signed with your username or your IP address. When someone does not sign his or her comment, a message is placed after it that says, "The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:John Smith (if registered) or 12.12.123.123 (if anonymous)." So, your IP address should appear after all your posts on this page, according to ]. Misplaced Pages would not capture or post IP addresses if it did not have to. Unfortunately, keeping track of who said what, identifying vandalism and blocking anonymous vandals requires it. -- ] 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Kjolb is, of course, correct and offers a fine explanation that I hope will allay Jim's concerns. If Jim nevertheless thinks Misplaced Pages has acted illegally, he should pursue legal action (upon the commencement of which a temporary block will, of course, be in order), although it should be observed that such action is unlikely to produce a result to which he is amenable. In the meanwhile, I'm restoring the template (although temporarily commenting out the IPs, pending any RfC relative to the general use of the template)) and, in view of its widespread use, submitting that it ought not to removed in the absence of a consensus for such removal, as established, for example, at ] (whilst only four editors—two other than Jumbo and I—participated in the VPP discussion, they seemed to concur in my supposition that an encyclopedic purpose underlies and justifies the inclusion of the template. |
|
|
|
|
|
In view of the encyclopedic interest in our using the template (for reasons outlined, inter al., by Kjkolb supra), in view of the plain permissibility of our using such template, and inasmuch as Jim ought readily to have known that his IP address was logged (toward which, see Angr at VPP, viz., ''Jim made the decision (either from work or home) to participate in the Misplaced Pages forum. As pointed out when you click "Save" you are acknowledging that your IP is being recorded. The "Notable Wikipedian" tag is appropriate in situation because he made himself to be a notable contributor here with his participation and in upkeep of WP:AUTO, among other things, it is worthwhile to be aware of what IP he may contribute from''), it seems appropriate that the template remain. No malign motive, to be sure, should be imputed to any editor here; instead, this is a situation in which an encyclopedic concern outweighs a dubious privacy concern. ] 01:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have no intention whatsoever of becoming a member of this site. I didn't have before, and I most certainly don't now. Discussions are continuing at a higher level that this (not difficult) which I hope will see the article being removed entirely. jh |
|
|
|
|
|
:As a side note, let's say that Jim does go forward with a "Legal proceeding" or make reference to his disagreement with Misplaced Pages on his show or in a blog, what would be the guidelines for including that information in his article--especially those relating to self-reference? ] 19:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's unlikely this article will be ]d away, so a legal proceeding surely is possible. I'm inclined to think any such proceeding would be non-notable, though; were Hawkins to sue another website for printing information about him (and even were he to reference such suit on his blog or radio program), I can't imagine that we'd consider the fact of such suit notable (indeed, we'd likely term the fact of such suit to be ]y or ]). Unfortunately, there is a tendency toward our viewing, contra ], lawsuits/complaints about Misplaced Pages as somehow more notable than those of any similarly-situated website (e.g., relative to ], whom some have argued became notable only in view of his quarreling with the Foundation, et al.), but I would certainly hope we could abate the effects of such tendency here. In any event, let's hope we'll not have to traverse that bridge... ] 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Facing == |
|
|
|
|
|
I quote from : |
|
|
Articles with a single picture are encouraged to have that picture |
|
|
at the top of the article, right-aligned, but this is not a hard and |
|
|
fast rule. Portraits with the head looking to the right should be |
|
|
left-aligned (looking into the article). |
|
|
--] 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well then, let's be encouraged and flip the picture to make it left-facing. A lead that has a left-aligned image just looks tacky. Objections? — ] ] 08:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article may be proposed on ], where it will be examined and opinions sought as to whether it should be kept or deleted. --] 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with Jim's wishes, I have listed this article for deletion. Given that Jim is a living person who is not immensely notable (well, not like Tony Blair or Nicole Kidman, anyway), I suggest that his wishes be respected. --] 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removed personal info & corrected error == |
|
|
|
|
|
I know that Jim is likely unhappy with the fact that this article was not deleted, so at the very least I thought I would correct the error about the award that he won (a silver Sony award according to the ), as well as removing the personal information listed previously under the section Other Interests--it seemed not only irrelevant, but was in fact mostly non-verifiable since it had quite a lot to do with the subject's own preferences--we could ask him if he really likes unusual vintage vinyl, but I doubt he'd care to respond. |
|
|
|
|
|
btw, Apologies for messing up the history page. I'm new to major edits; I've mainly corrected facts and typos as an anon. until recently & I'm still learning.--] 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The personal information likely wasn't encyclopedic, but almost all of it was surely verifiable ; the fact of his being married, and his wife's name, are surely notable, but I'll leave it to those more familiar with the subject than I to determine how/if to reintegrate such information... ] 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: With WP:BLP and the subject's wishes in mind, have we established ''exactly'' what the objection to the article is? Presuming that we stick to verifiable material, I mean. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: My objection is to its very existence, as previously mentioned. The original article contained material that was inaccurate, intrusive, inappropriate and defamatory. Clearly, if that can happen once, it can happen again, and I've got more interesting things to worry about, and better things to do with my time, than checking this page every week. jh |
|
|
|
|
|
== An offer to Jim == |
|
|
|
|
|
The deletion request for this article ended in no consensus, so it has not been deleted (I did vote to delete). Presumably, Jim is still unhappy with the article. I would like to offer to edit the article to something both Jim and the community can be happy with. Obviously, in doing so I cannot and will not violate Misplaced Pages's other policies on articles... for example, I will ensure that the resulting article will be free of bias and will not sound like an advertisement. I do not wish Jim to end up with a negative impression of Misplaced Pages, so I will try to fix things. |
|
|
|
|
|
If Jim wishes to discuss these possibilities, I invite him to contact me either on or via email using . ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi Andrew. Thanks for your offer, but I can't email you via the link as I'm not a member of Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure that editing the article further would make much difference; it's pretty rudimentary as it stands. I still want the entire page deleted, for reasons mentioned elsewhere. jh |
|
|
|
|
|
== Jimbo's comments == |
|
|
|
|
|
In his keynote address at ], ] spoke a bit to this topic. His speech (which is well worth listening to in its entirety) is located through the Wikimania site and stored . Go to minute 34:10 of about an hour's worth of talk. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''One of the social things that I think we can do is ]. During this past year, in the English Misplaced Pages in particular, our policies on biographies of living persons have become much more refined and really a a strong focus on higher quality.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Part of this is just in response by the community to not just the Siegenthaler incident but to lots of other similar incidents. As Misplaced Pages has gotten to be larger and larger, two things happen. It's become more and more important, so everybody who's famous, like, Stephen Colbert, looks himself up in Misplaced Pages. But also because the project's gotten larger and larger, we're actually writing articles about less and less famous people. So, you can write anything you want about George Bush and he's not going to call up on the phone and complain, right, he's heard it all. But what happens is, we have very minor celebrities and sort of controversial people, they read their article on Misplaced Pages and if it isn't good, then they complain, they get upset...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:''There's a sort of typical pattern where I've seen this happen over and over and over. Somebody, they go to an article and they see something they don't like in it so they blank the article. Right. So somebody warns them, and then they blank again and they get blocked. Right. Then they make a legal threat and they '''really''' get blocked. And it's just like a totally bad experience for that person, when in fact, they may have been right in the first place. Or maybe they weren't right. maybe they just didn't like what we wrote about them, but still, we didn't handle it well.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:''I think social policies have evolved in recent years, I mean the recent months, to actually handle this problem a lot better. A lot of the admins and experienced editors are taking a really strong stand against unsourced claims, which is always a typical example of the problem.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:''So my feeling of it is, my sense of it is, that the living biographies part of Misplaced Pages, which is one of the most difficult and most important areas, is one where we're really seeing a really massive movement towards higher quality. A lot of people in the community are really committed to that.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:''And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Getting back to the subject of this article, I ask, have we handled this right? Could we have done this better? --] 00:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Absolutely. The subject, unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's processes, blanked his article, and, in furtherance of his purpose, a user nominated his article for deletion, in a debate to which the former was privy and of which he actively partook. Even ] and ] recognize, as Jimbo has readily observed on the , even as we ought to be courteous to a subject when first he expresses concern about his biography, we ought not to comport our editing with the requests of a subject to the extent that they run counter to our policies and guidelines and undermine our encyclopedic principles. Indeed, in directing those who reply to ] requests, Jimbo has observed that, whilst we may temporarily stubbify or protect an article whilst we investigate whether there is ], ] information in an article, we do not remove articles simply because a subject requests such removal and that, once such policy has been made clear to a subject, we no longer need to accord him/her exorbitant courtesy (no more than we'd accord any other editor, especially such an editor who acts in contravention of policy). ] 01:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Use of surname v. given name== |
|
|
] 01:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
An anon editor from the BBC and now a new account's first edit has been trying to replace the use references to "Hawkins" with the informal "Jim". GeorgeLouis reverted this inclusion twice and myself once already with a warning to anon IP. I will revert it again with a warning to the new account. My reasoning (as I discussed with another editor) is as follows. |
|
|
''First names are wholly informal and they give a false impression of "Buddy-buddyness" between the reader and the subject. (as if the subject gave us permission to call him by his first name). On some levels, it is considered disrespectful and an intrusion to automatically assume a first name basis. Especially in light of Misplaced Pages's history with the subject, who has stated quite clearly his disfavor, a respectful and formal tone is the only proper course.'' ] 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Frankly, it's disrespectful and an intrusion to post an article about someone on this site then get hugely pompous when they ask, perfectly reasonably, for it to be removed. If you're actually concerned about being respectful and not being intrusive, you'll delete the whole thing. And just calling me `Hawkins' makes me sound like a criminal. So I've added `Mr', just to see how that goes down. jh |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm assuming that 'jh' is the subject himself - and seeing as there does appear to be consensus from his past experiences of Wiki that we shouldn't actively try to upset him, if he feels 'Hawkins' is derogatory and disrespectful (and personally I agree, in the UK we only tend to use surnames at boys public schools and to use a surname only does sound to a Brit like a put-down) then what does it hurt to simply use 'Jim Hawkins' in the two instances he wants instead of the blunt 'Hawkins' - come on people get a grip, the MoS says 'may use' surname after first instance, not 'must use' and as the anon IP states (I've just checked), Bill Gates does have some instances of using first name AND surname. I say this really isn't an issue, it just feels like we are being pedantic - let's use 'Jim Hawkins' rather than blunt 'Hawkins'. ] 15:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yes, jh is me, `the subject'. Thank you for that entirely sensible and moderate post. If you'd really like to help to stop me being actively upset, then please re-open the discussion on deletion, and vote for the article to be removed. jh |
|
|
|
|
|
:And I'm not an `editor'. I am, however, a journalist. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Dear Mr. Hawkins. George Bush, Tony Blair, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan — all are referenced by their surnames in WikiP, so you are in very good company (well, the last three anyway). Your friend, ] 07:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Surely if the subject himself is editing own entries to change formal US naming to informal UK naming (as deduced from thorough checking of the history from his British Broadcasting Committee IP address) and in show biz he is referred to more often by informal christian name used on the program (like Kylie or Madonna), then we should stick by his wishes, especially seeing full history of his disquiet with wiki? ] 23:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thank you! Good point. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually, the subject of an article should refrain from influencing the content of an article. Note our guidelines at ]. — ] ] 00:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::hahahahahahahaha! Subject of the article wants the damn thing removed, as discussed previously. Use of surname alone is just rude |
|
|
|
|
|
As a compromise, surely we could refer to subject respectfully as 'Jim Hawkins' as I noticed is used within 'Bill Gates'? ] 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's a bad example. Except for a very few exceptions scattered through the article, it overwhelmingly uses "Gates" by itself. — ] ] 00:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Reading stuff in discussion above it appears that the subject not only edited name to 'Jim' from 'Hawkins' but also was pretty ok with everything until changes were made from text taken from BBC website about him - where full name of 'Jim Hawkins' is used throughout - therefore, isn't it reasonable to use both names as compromise? (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/radio_shropshire/bbc_radio_shropshire_01.shtml#jim) - |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I am a mere sub-editor, or copy editor, depending upon which continent you live, but I do know that adults are referred to by their surnames, or last names, if you prefer, sometimes even with "Mr." added in front (as in the venerable ''New York Times).'' Yes, there might be exceptions, like Madonna, but she IS an exception. Sincerely, ] 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Manual of Style is unambiguous on this point. Full name should be used for the first mention, and thereafter they may be refered to by surname. Only royalty may be referred to by first name only, as for other subjects this gives an innapropriate appearance of familiarity with the subject which is unprofessional and unencyclopedic. We may not use honourifics (including "Mr"), as these are currently reserved for royalty, nobles, members of government, and popes. What our editorial options reduce to is that after the lead we may call him ''Jim Hawkins'', or ''Hawkins'', at our discretion. See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for the issue of whether this article ougth to be deleted, whoever wishes to pursue that can nominate the article for deletion, at which point the community will discuss it and render a collective decision. The nomination process is tidily ]. — ] ] 08:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Having checked out MoS (biographies) quite thoroughly I see that it states for subsequent use of names: "After the initial mention of any name, the person may (my embolding) be referred to by surname only". So all this stuff I've been reading about it being law, isn't not true. I commend Agne27 for trying to get consensus on this one - my vote is as Triviajunkie states, he's in showbiz and is referred to as 'Jim Hawkins' not 'Hawkins' (which I have to agree does sound very derogatory, but perhaps things are viewed differenly outside the UK) in his publicity material - so my vote is let's change it to 'Jim Hawkins' as a half-way house. ] 15:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been through that process once already, and/but if someone would be good enough to start it again, I'd be very grateful. But only if I don't have to endure the ridiculously pompous and self-regarding comments that characterised the first time. Funny how it's only your discretion that counts; that those of us who find ourselves written up here seem to have no influence at all. Almost as funny as how seriously it's all taken. |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed the picture, as that's a copyright violation. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Currently 3 editors are in favor of using the formal usage that was included in this article up until Aug 18th. 1 anon IP and 1 new account are in favor of changing to an informal first name usage. Up to this point, those two editors have not built consenus to favor the change from the status quo. I urge you to refrain from potentially violating the ] and work to build consenus to favor your change. In regards to the potential copyright violation of the photo, I will bring this up to the administrators' attention to quickly investigate. ] 09:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I'd like to weigh in on the side of going with the compromise solution of using "Jim Hawkins". Why? Same reason I voted to delete on the AfD: ''courtesy''. The proposed change isn't going to make Misplaced Pages a better or worse encyclopedia than it was before. It's not going to change our Alexa rank or get us smeared in the press. It's not going to make the earth tremble and the rivers run red with blood. But it would be an act of courtesy to a respected article subject at no cost to ourselves. No further argument should be necessary. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I will note that "Hawkins" is my first preference, however I would be more comfortable "Jim Hawkins" as a compromise then in soley having the informal "Jim". ] 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*see my comments above - for the sake of preventing this storm in a teacup making us look silly and pedantic - I propose "Jim Hawkins" being used throughout the article rather than the blunt "Hawkins" ] 17:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Even ] gets referred to in subsequent edits as Presley, but I don't have any strong feelings for given name/surname usage here. "Jim" is fine with me, and perfectly in keeping with the informal tone and style of the subject. As an Australian, I find being addressed by surname alone as quite rude. I also must ask, in an encyclopaedia that devotes more space to ] than ] and where, as ] pointed out, the made up word '']'' gets a longer entry than ], just how seriously do we want to take ourselves before people start seeing us as a bunch of merchant bankers? --] 17:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
**Okay then, it seems like myself, Agne27, Triviajunkie, Telemaketr, and the anon/Jim account are in favour of the compromise. I'd say that constitutes a consensus, so I'm changing the article to the compromise version. Hopefully that will settle the matter. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
