Talk:Tom Seddon

Requested move 16 January 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Although a concern was raised that "Tom" and "Thomas" are not sufficiently disambiguating, the point was made that the target article already redirects to this one, so it doesn't seem to be a big problem. Number 57 21:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Thomas Seddon (politician) → Tom Seddon – Commonly known as Tom Seddon. Requires move over redirect with edit history. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Schwede66 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why was this relisted? It looks like a simple technical request that should have just bypassed the formal RM process altogether. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it wasn't crystal-clear to me. I see him most commonly referred to as Tom, but there are few online sources for his period, and he didn't have a super-high profile. In cases like that, I put up a formal move request rather than request speedy deletion to make way for the move to see whether somebody comes out of the woodwork and says otherwise. But given that nobody has piped up, this could now be closed and the page moved. Schwede66 18:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I guess I should have said "could" rather than "should". Of course it's absolutely fine (and probably a good idea in this case) to submit an RM, but since the politician's article says he was referred to as "Tom" (and the Thomas Seddon article doesn't say that about the other guy), and the redirect has been in place for several years without dispute, I see no reason to relist instead of just moving as suggested. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  Apologies if I acted in error in relisting. To be honest I pretty much relist automatically if I see a request with just a week on the clock and no responses. If someone thought it worth bringing here rather than a speedy technical listing then it's nice to get some sort of affirmation, and relisting is pretty cheap. At worst it's just one more week till the move goes ahead. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Move to "Tom Seddon (politician)" or oppose - "Tom" and "Thomas" are not distinctive enough. Landscaper's and politician's birth names were "Thomas". Also, not primary topic of nearly similar name. --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Tom" and "Thomas" result in different article names, and therefore that is fine. If there is potential for confusion, the way to address this is via a hatnote, but certainly not with a superfluous disambiguation. Schwede66 07:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why should one be associated as "Tom" and other as "Thomas"? Neither one is "Tommaso" or "Tommy" or "Thom". Also, "Tom Seddon" may be ambiguous to me. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The underlying concept is called common names. Maybe you might want to have a look at guidelines covering naming conventions and hatnotes; it appears you are not overly familiar with those. Schwede66 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Haven't you heard of WP:NATURAL? I have heard commonality before. Many sources go by one name; Wikipedia should follow many sources. However, disambiguation comes in mind. Natural disambiguation comes in mind as well. One person is disambiguated currently by parenthetical method, not natural one. Natural method can be used if it is possible. Well, how possible and natural is "Tom Seddon"? But WP:DAB applies as well, including WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is "Tom Seddon" the politician the only primary topic of the same name? If so, that makes "Thomas Seddon" the painter the only primary topic of the same name. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Tom Seddon" has a WP:NATURAL difference from "Thomas Seddon" – i.e., neither has parentheses and they're not identical character strings. I'm looking at three considerations here: 1) There is no indication that "Thomas Seddon" the painter was ever generally referred to as "Tom", 2) The article about the politician does say he was generally known as "Tom" and has said that ever since the day the article was created eight years ago with no sign of that being a problem, and 3) The Tom Seddon redirect has been sending all inquiries for "Tom Seddon" to the politician's article ever since the redirect was created eight years ago with no sign of that being a problem. All signs therefore seem to be indicating that "Tom" is (at least primarily) the politician (and "Thomas" is, at least primarily, the painter). —BarrelProof (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since when do readers care about what sources use which name? The only ones who care about sources are those who edit all day. If they care about sources, they have at least their own minds and opinions as "sources". George Ho (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as page is already a redirect to this one. Uncontroversial move. Mattlore (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.