Talk:Robert Heaton Rhodes

photo source

Christchurch library Schwede66 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Heaton Rhodes → Robert Heaton Rhodes Sr. – Both notable individuals (in this case father and son) share the same name. The son is the most notable of the two. No indication that he was most commonly know as Heaton Rhodes. The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography [1] employs Robert Heaton Rhodes in reference to the younger, as most other reliable sources. The younger is only referred to as Heaton Rhodes when preceded by the titular Sir otherwise it's Robert Heaton Rhodes or R. Heaton Rhodes. Per WP:QUALIFIER, the father could alternately be referred to as Robert Heaton Rhodes (1815–1884). Labattblueboy (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Heaton Rhodes → Robert Heaton Rhodes
• Oppose. If the son was commonly known as Sir Heaton Rhodes then it's absolutely fine for the article to be at Heaton Rhodes, since Heaton was clearly used as his first name. A simple pair of hatnotes will suffice to distinguish the two, as they always have done. The DNZB naturally gives his full name in the opening paragraph, as does any other biographical dictionary (including Wikipedia), but it refers to him as "Heaton Rhodes" in the first line of the second paragraph. It also says: "As he had the same name as his father, the family always called him Heaton." -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

When refering to someone by Sir or Madam the given name is often not employed. Besides, Robert Heaton Rhodes or R. Heaton Rhodes is still more common. What his family calls him is rather irrelevant, particularly when a more effective method of disambiguating between two people is needed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, when refering to someone as "Sir X" the given name is always employed (e.g. Sir John Smith is always addressed as "Sir John", never, ever as "Sir Smith"). I suggest you read up on titles. No more effective method of disambiguating between two people is required than a hatnote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. My reading of the matter is that the senior is generally called Robert Heaton Rhodes, whereas his son is either called Heaton Rhodes or Sir Heaton Rhodes or Sir Rhodes. Hence, both articles would appear to comply with our naming conventions. That said, given that they were both 'locals', I have them on my long term agenda for article expansion. And when you look into somebody's bio in a bit more detail, sometimes these things become a lot clearer. But for now, I'm not at all convinced that anything needs to change. Schwede66 20:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

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.