Talk:John Larkin Jr.

Requested move 24 June 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved John Larkin, Jr. (businessman) to John Larkin Jr., the existing dab page turned into redirect. The nom and the subsequent elaboration were persuasive, that's how we generally handle similar situations. No such user (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• John Larkin, Jr. (businessman) → John Larkin Jr.
• John Larkin, Jr. → Deleted to make room for move

– The businessman's entry carries Wikipedia's sole main title header for anyone named "John Larkin Jr.", thus obviating the need for the parenthetical qualifier "(businessman)". The comma should be also deleted, per MOS:JR. Furthermore, there is no need for the two-man John Larkin, Jr. (with the comma) disambiguation page, since both men are already listed at the all-inclusive John Larkin disambiguation page. The other John Larkin, Jr., who is listed on the two-man dab page as John Larkin (screenwriter), was hardly ever known as "John Larkin, Jr." — a single credit under that name for a short-lived Broadway play. A hatnote atop the businessman's entry, noting the screenwriter's very rarely used alternative name, would be more than sufficient. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• The fact that there is another John Larkin Jr. proves the point that there is a need for additional qualifiers. How would it be known to anyone that John Larkin (screenwriter) was hardly ever known as John Larkin Jr.? It is listed as his name on his wikipedia page. Should it be removed rather than removing (businessman) from this page? I vote to keep John Larkin Jr. as the full name of John Larkin (screenwriter) and keep (businessman) as a qualifier on this page.Dwkaminski (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you are the one who created the Wikipedia entry for John Larkin, Jr. (businessman), I am surprised that you would be arguing against making the subject of that entry the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "John Larkin Jr." After all, the businessman is the one whose WP:COMMONNAME is in fact "John Larkin Jr." The screenwriter, who was also a producer and director, has over a hundred film and television credits and he is credited as "John Larkin Jr." on not a single one of those credits.

The screenwriter's full birth name was "John Francis Larkin Jr." and in his early years, he tried out a number of pen names and eventually settled on the simplest form, "John Larkin", which became his common name for the remainder of his life. The only other pen name he used consistently for a number of his early credits was the form with the middle name, "John Francis Larkin", possibly because African American film performer, John Larkin (actor, born 1877) had already started using "John Larkin" as a stage name from 1930 until his death in 1936.

Thus, it is all the more unusual that you would wish the screenwriter's virtually unknown and unused name form to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the form "John Larkin Jr." while the entry you created becomes secondary with the appended parenthetical qualifier "(businessman)". Redirects can be created for John Larkin, Jr. (playwright) (with the comma) and John Larkin Jr. (playwright) (without the comma), both pointing to John Larkin (screenwriter), but that obscure alternative name should certainly not be primary over the businessman's name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Let me try to be more clear - I vote to keep John Larkin (screenwriter) and John Larkin Jr. (businessman). I don't think it is that big a deal if the change is made, just wanted to voice my opinion.Dwkaminski (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion is certainly valued but, as we all know, parenthetical qualifiers are only appended when there is a need to disambiguate between or among same-named people. There are many men named "John Larkin", thus John Larkin (screenwriter) obviously needs his qualifier.

As another example, the topmost entry on the John Larkin disambiguation page is for a businessman named John D. Larkin. Since Wikipedia has no entry for anyone else named "John D. Larkin", there is no need for the main title of his entry to be rendered as John D. Larkin (businessman). In the same manner, the businessman whose entry you created has no competition for the name "John Larkin Jr." and therefore also has no need of parenthetical qualifier.

Wikipedia has a large number of two-person disambiguation pages, but those pages represent unique names, not partial split-offs from the main disambiguation page, as is the case with the John Larkin, Jr. two-man split off from the main John Larkin dab page.

As a further example, if the judge under "See also" was named "John Davis Larkin Jr.", rather than "John Davis Larkins Jr.", we would not create dab page clutter by adding a parenthetical qualifier to the businessman's header and initiating a split-off two-man "John D. Larkin" dab that would list only "John D. Larkin (businessman)" and "John Davis Larkin Jr." on the possibility that the judge may have been also known as "John D. Larkin". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom, no need for disambiguation here. Lennart97 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.