Talk:John Milton

Oops, wrong name

Well, obviously I only remembered it after creating the page. Sigh. The name of the page is wrong because Milton does not appear in the audio, rather he is only mentioned and only by last name. Hmmm.... What would the name be then? I don't even know. Amorkuz ☎ 17:13, May 19, 2016 (UTC)

Wiki practice would suggest that this page should be renamed John Milton; the speedy rename tag is inappropriate when the new name is in question. Shambala108 ☎ 02:59, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't think the rename would be disputed. To the best of my understanding, we are not allowed to use John Milton because "John" was never mentioned in the audio. This page comes from a phrase by Mary: "17th century: Milton, Rubens, Purcell", where she mentions famous writer, painter and composer from the 17th century. So in DWU we know they are famous but don't know either their full names or what they are famous for. When somebody added Category:Writers from the real world to this page, I thought that is reasonable because the category is based on the real world. But I always believed that we are not allowed to export first names from the real world. (Okay, not always, only after being explained this.) There was recently a similar case with Byron. His page was called Byron (Mary's Story) because the first names "George Gordon" were not mentioned there. Then User:RogerAckroydLives found his full name (perhaps, in The Witch from the Well) and put a speedy rename tag.

Given the dispute, let me justify the proposed name then. I believe John Milton cannot be used because "John" it is not mentioned in the audio. Milton (writer) cannot be used because the audio does not say he was a writer. Milton (The Witch from the Well) cannot be used because he does not appear in the audio. Virtually, the only thing we know in DWU (unless there are other sources, but I could not find them on the Wiki) is that Mary Shelley considers him to be a remarkable representative of the 17th century. Hence, my proposed dab term Milton (17th century).

For the record, I later did use such a dabbing for Purcell (17th century). So if this is found to be wrong, it would have implications for that page too. Amorkuz ☎ 06:35, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

There are several similar pages on the wiki where the entire name has been given, and a behind the scenes note by User:CzechOut given. I'll dig around to find some examples so we can continue the discussion. Shambala108 ☎ 14:04, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Ok, a couple of specific examples are Geoffrey Boycott and John Wisden, and take a look in particular at the reasoning on Talk:John Wisden. Shambala108 ☎ 04:43, June 5, 2016 (UTC)

Freedom, at last! No, seriously, it makes my life so much easier. I've been tying myself in knots to avoid specifying the gender because it is not stated in the story. And I completely agree with the reasoning: Mary gives only the last names because these are enough to infer whom she means. The writer must have made his research making sure this is not ambiguous. (For instance, Joe Turner is mentioned in Mary's Story with the first name because there "Turner" would not have been clear enough.) So the last name is sufficient for us to determine whom she means. (I actually checked the wikipedia listings and every time there was only one such person in the 17th century.) So I also thought that the authorial intent was to give a clear indication, not to suggest some timey-wimeyness. Oh, I love it when rules makes sense that I had in mind all along. If I understand correctly, this doesn't mean that first names should be added whenever clear. For instance, Dostoyevski, Rubens and Poussin were named correctly? But Purcell (17th century) should be renamed to Henry Purcell]? I'll put a rename tag on him too. Amorkuz ☎ 08:48, June 5, 2016 (UTC)