Talk:John Hallam

Name

Not too sure about the name I've chosen here. It might be in contravention of our normal naming standards. However, as there already is a John Hallam, it seemed a reasonable way to disambiguate as we ponder this question: is it better to call this article John Hallam (Catch-1782) — which to my mind seems unnecessarily complicated — or to call the other John Hallam John Hallam (actor). I kinda think it makes more sense to go with the latter, so as to preference the DWU entry. If we do that, then we can drop the "Dr." title, which is completely non-standard. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:57, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

The way that it is now is the way other individuals are disambiguated. Why is it more complicated than the countless other articles that are disambiguated in the same manner? --Tangerineduel 11:20, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's different because this character is a fairly major character — he's basically a one-off companion on a par with Christina de Souza. Meanwhile, the actor is also playing a main character in a story. So which one gets precedence? That's the real question. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:45, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, reading the article once more the article's name should be John B. Hallam. --Tangerineduel 04:00, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go along with that. I don't think I saw that just because I didn't have that middle initial in my first stages of working on this article. Even after I added it, it didn't really "click" with me that I had such an obvious way to disambig. Still, I do kinda wonder about the theoretical question I've posed here. If we didn't have this middle initial, how would we disambiguate? What comes first in the order of precedence on disambiguation? I can quite appreciate we'd disambiguate with (Catch-1782) if there were two John Hallams in the DWU. But if there's only one, and then there's a real-life John Hallam, wouldn't the DWU John Hallam be disambiguated, while the real world guy be John Hallam (actor)? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:32, May 12, 2010 (UTC)