Talk:John Jones, Talysarn

Opening heading

Thank you for adding the stub. While many great Welshmen in this period, most notably poets, took a moniker which often indicated their locality, I do not think John Jones was one of these. He was known as "John Jones, Talysarn" simply to distinguish him from other John Joneses, not as "John Jones (Talysarn)" which would indicate that he could be referred to by the moniker alone. D22 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he certainly could be referred to simply as "Talysarn", and people would know who you meant. But it's the normal wikipedia convention to use the brackets to differentiate people of the same name, and I think it's right to do it here. Deb 12:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation D22 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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: moved Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Talysarn (Methodist minister) → John Jones, Talysarn — The article was safely at John Jones (Talysarn) for some years until User:Neelix decided that this was not a suitable way of disambiguating. The page has been moved twice in recent days, and is now at an extremely unhelpful title. I propose a move to John Jones, Talysarn, which will match the Welsh wikipedia nomenclature whilst avoiding the brackets that Neelix finds so objectionable. Deb (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Sounds good to me. Reviewing the literature, the use of the comma seems to be the most accepted form. Neelix (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - ugh! Talysarn (Methodist minister) is indeed an ugly title. Of course John Jones (preacher) would also do. StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - There is more than one noteable preacher called John Jones. John Jones, Talysarn is right. D22 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Move makes sense to me. Daicaregos (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Confused - this guy was called John Jones, right? Talysarn was a place he was associated with (not his name or title), right? If that's the case, I would prefer the article to be called John Jones (preacher), or if that's still ambiguous, John Jones (Talysarn preacher) or John Jones (Methodist minister). We normally disambiguate first by saying what someone was known for being.--Kotniski (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that, as mentioned above, there have been hundreds of preachers called John Jones. Welsh Biography Online lists 62 John Joneses (that's not counting any Jones who may have John as a middle name) and about 40 of those are clergymen of some kind. Deb (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK so "preacher" alone might not be sufficient disambiguation, but that doesn't mean we can do without it, just that we have to add to it. (There have probably been many John Jones's in Talysarn too).--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not famous ones. Talysarn is a tiny village. Deb (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but still, I find it more useful and more in line with normal Wikipedia practice to give the necessary extra disambiguating information (e.g. Talysarn) in addition to (not instead of) the standard disambiguating information of what the person was.--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The source of confusion here is that Talysarn is not just the place with which this John Jones is associated; it has become part of his name, like an affixed title. This is not a convention we are inventing for the title of this Wikipedia article but rather the standard title used in scholarly articles to refer to this person. Neelix (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, all right then in that case, support, but the article ought to be more explicit about his name(s) (I'll try writing something and those more knowledgeable can correct it if I get it wrong).--Kotniski (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Which I've done, and I'm also closing this move discussion, since we now seem to be unanimous.--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2010 (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.