Talk:John Norman (mayor, fl. 1250)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Norman, Mayor of London (1250). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714182131/http://citybridgetrust.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8BF2A861-C8D4-4AE4-AD80-3E078E4E060C/0/lordmayors_list.PDF to http://citybridgetrust.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8BF2A861-C8D4-4AE4-AD80-3E078E4E060C/0/lordmayors_list.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 24 May 2019
edit- 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.
Moved to John Norman (mayor, fl. 1250) and John Norman (draper), per consensus for the alternative proposed by Necrothesp. bd2412 T 00:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- John Norman, Mayor of London (1250) → John Norman (Mayor of London in 1250)
- John Norman (d.1468) → John Norman (draper)
– The current disambiguation of these articles seems strange. For the first one, having "Mayor of London" outside the parentheses makes it seem like part of his name. For the second one, I am suggesting disambiguation by profession, as brought up before in remarks by Necrothesp for Talk:George Whitmore (Lord Mayor), Talk:Thomas Wright (Lord Mayor) and Talk:James Esdaile (lord mayor). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. No firm opinion on the first. I'm not sure you would confuse it as being part of his name as it's clearly a title, but would the conventions of WP:NCNOB apply in this case? Proposed title is the only viable alternative that I can see, but to be honest there's so little information in the article I'd be tempted to redirect to List of Lord Mayors of London. Not sure about the second: was he primarily notable for being a draper? The article is mostly about his tenure as Mayor, so would John Norman (Lord Mayor of London, died 1468) be appropriate? Failing that, if there is no dominant or practical qualifier then per WP:NCPDAB "the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death", so John Norman (died 1468) would be fine. PC78 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm also slightly confused by those three other discussions, since they all appear to contradict each other. PC78 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think those don't contradict each other. In the discussion for James Esdaile, Necrothesp said "Lord Mayors of London are generally not really politicians, but businessmen. The disambiguator is fine unless we know what his actual profession was (that would actually be better)." For Esdaile and Wright, we unfortunately don't know their actual profession. For Whitmore, his profession was haberdasher, so the proposal is George Whitmore (haberdasher), which is a similar case as "(draper)" for one of these John Normans. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- James Esdaile was moved from "lord mayor" to "mayor" on the basis that the former isn't a proper noun; at the same time, Thomas Wright was moved to "lord mayor". I'm assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that these people are mostly notable for being Lord Mayors of London, so to me that would seem like the most appropriate and recognisable form of disambiguation. Those articles are painfully brief, BTW; is there any real basis for having standalone articles? PC78 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- We're drifting a bit off-topic here, I think. For me, the James Esdaile outcome is a bit confusing, given the comment made by Necrothesp before that was closed – perhaps that should have ended up staying at "lord mayor" (lowercase). For the second suggestion in this RM, I was leaning on comments from Necrothesp that seemed to indicate that being Lord Mayor of London should not be considered the primary characteristic of someone if their profession was known – presumably since that designation was considered a relatively minor honorific post bestowed on people who were already prominent/notable for other reasons (at least that this was the case at the time). I do not have the view that we actually need to have articles about all of these people. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly that. Lord Mayors of London are already notable in their occupation. That's why they get elected aldermen and that's why they eventually become Lord Mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Except, of course someone designated 'haberdasher' may well not have been in the haberdashery business, but rather a member of the worshipful company of haberdashers and occupied in some completely different business. In which case tinkering with clearly identifiable and specific designators may well be misleading and unhelpful Motmit (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Now, yes, absolutely (most modern Lord Mayors of London are actually in finance and the livery companies are now just fraternal organisations). Then, unlikely. Members of the guilds generally practised the appropriate business. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Except, of course someone designated 'haberdasher' may well not have been in the haberdashery business, but rather a member of the worshipful company of haberdashers and occupied in some completely different business. In which case tinkering with clearly identifiable and specific designators may well be misleading and unhelpful Motmit (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly that. Lord Mayors of London are already notable in their occupation. That's why they get elected aldermen and that's why they eventually become Lord Mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- We're drifting a bit off-topic here, I think. For me, the James Esdaile outcome is a bit confusing, given the comment made by Necrothesp before that was closed – perhaps that should have ended up staying at "lord mayor" (lowercase). For the second suggestion in this RM, I was leaning on comments from Necrothesp that seemed to indicate that being Lord Mayor of London should not be considered the primary characteristic of someone if their profession was known – presumably since that designation was considered a relatively minor honorific post bestowed on people who were already prominent/notable for other reasons (at least that this was the case at the time). I do not have the view that we actually need to have articles about all of these people. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- James Esdaile was moved from "lord mayor" to "mayor" on the basis that the former isn't a proper noun; at the same time, Thomas Wright was moved to "lord mayor". I'm assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that these people are mostly notable for being Lord Mayors of London, so to me that would seem like the most appropriate and recognisable form of disambiguation. Those articles are painfully brief, BTW; is there any real basis for having standalone articles? PC78 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think those don't contradict each other. In the discussion for James Esdaile, Necrothesp said "Lord Mayors of London are generally not really politicians, but businessmen. The disambiguator is fine unless we know what his actual profession was (that would actually be better)." For Esdaile and Wright, we unfortunately don't know their actual profession. For Whitmore, his profession was haberdasher, so the proposal is George Whitmore (haberdasher), which is a similar case as "(draper)" for one of these John Normans. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm also slightly confused by those three other discussions, since they all appear to contradict each other. PC78 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support John Norman (mayor, fl. 1250) and John Norman (draper). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- No objection to that modification. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support Necrothesp's first suggestion.--Cúchullain t/c 18:51, 11 June 2019 (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.