Talk:John S. Clarke

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Unexpectedlydian in topic Change article title?
    Good articleJohn S. Clarke has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    February 15, 2023Good article nomineeListed
    Did You Know
    A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 30, 2009.
    The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the British lion tamer and politician John Smith Clarke cured Lenin's dog of an illness?


    Change article title?

    edit

    It appears that "John Clarke" was more commonly referred to as John S. Clarke or John Smith Clarke in both contemporary news reports and subsequent biographies, including the ODNB (which uses John Smith Clarke). Should the article title be changed to reflect that? Unexpectedlydian♯4talk 19:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

    @Unexpectedlydian: Let's see... The available-online third-party sources cited here that mention him (which, for a would-be GA, I'm assuming are a good representation of sources overall) have 6 "John Smith Clarke", 14 "John S. Clarke", 1 (Three Scottish Poets) refuses to load. Pen Pictures of Russia Under the Red Terror, while cited as "Smith", actually has "S." on the title page. So I would support a move to "S." based on that. @MapReader: You moved this from "John Smith Clarke" in 2017. Do you have any thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    "John Smith Clarke" would be appropriate if he had a two-part surname, but he doesn't - "Smith" is his middle name, and he is routinely referred to as "Mr Clarke" in contemporary sources. So I wouldn't support moving back to John Smith Clarke. It's true that a fair few sources include his middle initial, at least upon first reference or in the titles of his articles etc., but whether this is sufficient to conclude that the initial is part of his Commonname is debateable? MapReader (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    WP:INITS advises, Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or initials, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format. No sources cited in this article say just "John Clarke", and more say "John S. Clarke" than "John Smith Clarke", so "S." would seem to be the way to go. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks both, I can’t recall coming across any sources which called him just “John Clarke”. I’d be keen to change the article title. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk 10:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Well, his own publications - for the attribution of which, one assumes he made the decision - are the most authoritative source, and these all include the initial rather than the name. So if there is a move I would suggest adding the initial. MapReader (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Great, thank you both for your help. I’m happy to change the name of the article later on today. Not sure how it’ll affect the GA nom, but if it breaks I’ll re-submit. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk 13:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Hi @MapReader, @Tamzin, just confirming the page has now been renamed. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk 11:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @Unexpectedlydian: Great! Although since that left John S. Clarke redirecting to John S. Clarke (socialist politician), it made the disambiguator in the title unnecessary. Since that's an admin/pagemover-only move, I've gone ahead and done it for you. And then added the appropriate hatnote. Look good to you? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @Tamzin Awesome, thanks so much! Looks good to me :) Unexpectedlydian♯4talk 10:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply