Talk:Peter Forster (bishop)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Peter R. Forster → Peter Forster — This article is the only Peter Forster article in town, so it should be at that location. DBD 09:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, there is an actor going by the name Peter Forster, but that article is not created yet, and I didn't see this person referred to specifically as "Peter R. Forster" (with the initial) in any of the given references, it's always either the full "Peter Robert Forster" or just "Peter Forster", so I'd say it's a safe bet to move it, however I'm not so certain that the full Peter Robert Forster wouldn't be an even better title. -- œ^™ 22:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

He's overwhelmingly "Peter Forster" — middle name would only be included for dab, and if dab were needed, occupation (bishop) would be preferred anyway. But since no dab is necessary, Peter Forster it should be. QED DBD

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Not an MP

This man is not an MP by any sensible definition. It's simply miselading to say that he is. Even our own article says "the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which only members elected at UK-wide General Elections to the (lower) House of Commons are referred to as Members of Parliament, abbreviated to MP(s)" so the House of Lords doesn't cut it. I honestly don't give a monkey's about his expenses but please don;t use this misleading term. Thanks DBaK (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2022

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Peter Forster (bishop) → Peter Forster (born 1950) – I am open to other dab titles, but Forster is no longer a bishop, having been received into the Catholic Church and not ordained, he is now in the lay state and considered a layman. Since he is retired from the House of Lords, "politician" seems inapt as well, but I'm struggling to describe him accurately. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Retired or deceased bishops are disambiguated via the parenthetical qualifier "(bishop)" since the fact of their having held that ecclesiastical office represents the key feature of their historical notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Forster served in the House of Lords as a politician, which is a more enduring feature of historical notability, considering the current lay state as he has given up being a bishop, the parenthetical qualifier doesn't actually describe him anymore, and is a disservice to people trying to determine what he is. Elizium23 (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Roman Spinner about the usual handling of retired or deceased individuals; "(footballer)" doesn't necessarily mean the person is currently a footballer, "(judge)" doesn't necessarily mean the person is currently a judge, and so on. I think it's uncommon/unusual to see lords spiritual referred to as "politicians", despite their political activity, and it would be confusing and undesirable for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is different from retirement or death. This gentleman is not a bishop. He never was a bishop, according to his church. He is ontologically a layman. He is a retired bishop, a former bishop, a bishop emeritus, and I wouldn't oppose putting one of those in the disambiguation, but you guys are supporting a falsehood. Elizium23 (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  let's put it this way: what you are saying is the equivalent of supporting Bruce Jenner (man). Well of course Bruce Jenner is a former man, that has an enduring key feature of his notability, Olympics and all that. So of course it makes sense to disambiguate as a man. Does that make sense to you? Elizium23 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry that accompanies this talk page: "In 1996, Forster was appointed the 40th bishop of Chester. He was consecrated a bishop (alongside John Packer, Bishop of Warrington and later Bishop of Ripon and Leeds) during a service at York Minster". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments of Roman Spinner. Whatever his current church might think, Peter Forster was Bishop of Chester from 1996 to 2019, and that is why we have an article about him. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per WP:NCPDAB, The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in their own right. [...] Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators. He is noteworthy because he was a bishop, hence this is how he is disambiguated from others of the same name. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:37, 5 December 2022 (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.