Talk:Axel Örbom

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Proposer [1] has given no adequate rationale, nor responded to the oppose vote, and there has been no support at all. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Axel Örbom → Carl Gustaf Axel Örbom — per source 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Biographic sources in Swedish from late 19th/early 20th century (including Nordisk familjebok, which also "reformed" the spelling of some names) always use all "first" names, and don't indicate which name(s) that is the actual first name, i.e., the names they really used themselves and by which they will have been mentioned in contemporary newspaper articles and non-biographic books, or in more modern encyclopedias. In Swedish there is (or at least was) nothing strange in using any of your "first" names (if you, say, had three or fours), which may differ from today's English-language practice. (I'm actually L. G. Tomas E., which doesn't fit into US forms with "first name" and one "middle initial".) Really using all three "first" names would have been extremely rare, but two has happened. This record from LIBRIS indicates that this person indeed called himself Axel in prints, so the article should remain under its present name. Full names, such as Carl Gustaf Axel Örbom, are useful redirects rather than appropriate article names in these cases. Tomas e (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move again

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Danger (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Axel Örbom → Carl Gustaf Axel Örbom — Previous argument was to ignore the name used in the Swedish Encyclopedia and use the name found in a Google search of LIBRIS. Which one should an encyclopedia use? How about the one already used in an encyclopedia instead of any other variation you can find an example of online. One name is encyclopedia and one name isn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose What is the point bringing this back just 10 days after a decision was made? There was no support for the proposal the last time. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and consider action against the proposer for disruption if this behaviour persists. They have ignored the normal string protocol for talk pages, and also raised two identical moves just 10 days apart. There is no case for this move in terms of WP:NC, no support for it, and the proposer shows no interest in following Wikipedia procedures such as WP:consensus. I'll post a note on their talk page. Andrewa (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Where I come from one opinion for something, and a second opposing opinion is not a consensus for anything. Let me explain it in terms you may be familiar with 1 + (-1) = 0. I am assuming good faith, so maybe a community college course in logic or mathematics may be helpful. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the closing admin. That's 2, if you start counting from 0. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Closers don't !vote, they are supposed to be impartial and tally the !votes and weigh the reasong behind each vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But in terms of this process, the close was valid and not even clearly borderline. I formed the opinion that relisting would be a waste of time. I'm now entitled to vote on this second poll, but I won't be able to close it whatever the result. Andrewa (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree it's not even a rough consensus. Maybe a course in official Wikipedia policy might be of even more value. Andrewa (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Google search also turns up a "John Axel Örbom," so a unique identifying title for this one would be preferable. Please avoid accusing the nominator of bad behavior, which is completely irrelevant to the question of what title this article should have. The previous move suggestion attracted only one !vote so re-listing it for more discussion makes sense. Another argument for the change is that a search for "Axel Örbom" will still find this article easily after the name change; changing the article name makes it easier for more searchers to find more information. betsythedevine (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this other Axel Örbom worth of an article? If so, agree, and we should create a stub, partly to demonstrate and test this and to reduce the need for further discussion. But the John Axel Örbom my Google search [2] turned up seems an unlikely candidate for an article, if this [3] is the best ghit we can come up with. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article name continued

So we have the Swedish national encyclopedia using the name "Carl Gustaf Axel Orbom" and we have a web search in Libris that shows "Axel Orbom" and we choose the name in the web search over the Swedish national encyclopedia. Hmmm, that is a weird way of deciding that defies logic. When deciding what name to use in an encyclopedia, here is a clue, use the one already used in other encyclopedias, not the one found in a web search at Libris. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth are you removing diacritics from Swedish names? And please notice that your request was closed as no move. Tomas e (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The reference you (implicitly) quoted above at http://runeberg.org/sbh/b0785.html is in Swedish. The Swedish National Encyclopedia doesn't necessarily have the same naming conventions as Wikipedia. You are welcome to propose that we adopt a policy of following their lead, but I'm skeptical that it will have much support.

Perhaps the case can be better argued. I was of half a mind to relist it, but there was clearly no consensus, and we each have a finite amount of time to spend on such matters. And the argument above doesn't add anything worthwhile to the discussion IMO, so maybe a close at the normal time wasn't a bad idea.

But if you can post a persuasive argument in terms of either WP:NC or WP:IAR or any other current policy or policies, I'll be glad to see it gets a fair hearing.

Meantime Hang in there, and see User:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)