Talk:E. W. Hornung/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Copyvio, it seems:

http://hornung.thefreelibrary.com/.

Gotta go now.

Charles Matthews 21:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Writers inbox removed for no reason[edit]

EW Hornung is a writer and it is pretty standard for writers to have in an inbox to show how they are. A previous editor removed for no good reason. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for opening a discussion, but going to edit war over replacing it is fairly pointless while the discussion is taking place. Idiot boxes are not necessary in all articles—a fact highlighted in the MoS—and in many are an unwelcome distraction. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a distraction if I am adding information and its not like I am adding untrue or incorrect information. The fact you consider it a distraction is your issue, would you call these so called idiot boxes a distraction for say, Charles Dickens, Jules Verne or Arthur Conan Doyle? Dwanyewest (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no necessity to have an infobox on any page. The writers Ian Fleming and H.C. McNeile are both Featured Articles (in other words the best that Wiki has to offer), and neither of them have IBs. The information you duplicate is all covered just a few inches to the left of the box. Why do we need to repeat everything that is already contained in the prose? That's pointless and unneccessary. There is no reason to have the box here, and one was added for no good reason at all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, no comment about the terrific expansion by Schro but "oh no the infobox has disappeared, how terrible" sort of response.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. It's remarkable how one space can generate so much debate. This debate is not really about the particular case of Hornung, because there was no evidence that Hornung's name is consistently (or even generally) reproduced as "E.W.", nor evidence that Hornung himself had a particular preference. Sources were cited which do reproduce his name that way, but in many cases those were sources which generally use that format as a house style.
So the question comes to down to the broader one of whether there is a WP:ENGVAR exception to WP:INITS. The guideline WP:INITS does not include any such exception, nor was there strong evidence that British English favours a particular usage. Examples given of newspaper style guides which omit the space were countered by several British sources which name him as "EW Hornung" (no spaces, but also no full stops), and by academic style guides from Oxford and Cambridge which use the dots and the space. WP:RS treats academic sources as more reliable than others, so we should attach greater weight to the academic usage, so on the basis of this discussion, there is no policy-based reason to make an exception to the guideline.
An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC: Does the guideline for consecutive initials WP:INITS contradict WP:ENGVAR?. If that discussion produces a consensus to introduce an ENGVAR exception to WP:INITS, feel free to open a discussion on reverting this move. But unless and until there is such a consensus, the guideline stands ... and without a preponderance of evidence to treat the particular case of Hornung as an exception, I attach the greatest weight to the arguments of editors who seek to uphold our existing naming convention. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E.W. Hornung → E. W. Hornung – Per WP:INITS, consecutive initials include a space. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move, as nominator, for what should be an uncontroversial move over redirect per naming conventions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hardly "uncontroversial": in BrEng we do not introduce spaces between initials, so the title if correct on WP:ENGVAR grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the guidelines? Or the hundreds of other British authors who follow this naming convention? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I've read the guidelines. Do you understand BrEng usage? As to the others, WP:OSE is no basis for slavishly following incorrect usage. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are inequivocal. Two initials, we use a space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sinden, This is about having two policies that contradict each other and coming to a consensus on which takes precedence, so no, there is nothing "inequivocal" here (although neither I, nor my dictionary knows what means). I'm not going to get into yet another pissing contest with you, so I suggest we leave a consensus to develop from other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, a silly typo. And there's no contradiction, it's unequivocal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there is a contradiction: I've already pointed out what it is. Just because you are not viewing it that way doesn't mean that the contradiction doesn't exist. - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in BrEng we do not introduce spaces between initials". Utter and complete rubbish. It's entirely personal preference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see any problem with it the way it is. Obviously Schrod chose to write it that way for a reason.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that it doesn't follow our naming conventions, no. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might I point out that it's not as if other reputable sources don't place EW together Independent, The Guardian, BBC, I'd be more inclined to go with what reputable sources use rather than some self-invented "policy" on wikipedia. The Raffles website also uses E.W ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a style issue. We don't source style, as different publications have their own style guides. As a publication, we also have our own style guide which we should follow, and it prescribes a space between two consecutive initials. There is no reason to break from our own MoS and make an exception in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles which frequently contradict guidelines on here based on what reputable sources call it. If anything EW Hornung is more common.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The guideline being cited in support of this move allows exceptions like this. Per the reliable sources provided above, it seems obvious the current title is fine. Hot Stop 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I don't think ENGVAR applies here, any more than it does to double quotes vs single. If ENGVAR trumps INITS, then INITS needs to be rewritten or dropped. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The article subject is English and is therefore correct in its current form. Introducing a space would be wrong, as that would be the AmEng way of doing things. Cassianto (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC
    • Drivel. This isn't an ENGVAR issue. British English publications are as varied over their use of spaces as publications anywhere else. As a Briton, I wouldn't dream of not using spaces. That's my personal preference, as is not using spaces. But we should stick to the standard Wikipedia style, which is to use spaces and full stops (I wouldn't use the latter outside Wikipedia, incidentally - again, personal preference, not ENGVAR). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per weak nomination. Where a guideline says "Generally...", a rationale "per the guideline" isn't good enough, as this is a specific case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it? Is there any evidence that Hornung's name is almost exclusively seen without spaces? I see none. It's just a style preference, nothing more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There's no difference in this regard between "American" and "British" English. Hundreds of British sources use a space: [1][2][3][4][5][6], etc. DrKiernan (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that's not true, despite your firm statement to the contrary: dd you get round to having a look at a couple of the style guides of various media and publishing organisations which state the polar opposite of your opinion? - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the University of Oxford[7] "use a space to separate each initial" and Cambridge University Press [8], which also spaces initials. DrKiernan (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know. This doesn't change anything I've said at all. Is it really necessary to have identical conversation over 3 different pages? DrKiernan (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but I started none of the threads, which should be centralised. BTW, your oppose at FAC on this is contemptible. (And before you complain about making a personal comment: I'm not. I'm making a judgment on an petty and pointless action. – SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so it seems fairly clear that it isn't an WP:ENGVAR issue, just personal preference of each publication, or, in this case the author of the article. As I mention earlier, as a publication, we also have our own style guide which we should follow, in this case it's WP:INITS and it prescribes a space between two consecutive initials. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Standard Wikipedia convention and looks much better. Not an ENGVAR issue (I'm British, incidentally). Just a personal choice issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With or without spaces, both are used. The MOS is a guideline and intended to be flexible. If Hornung is commonly referred to without the space between the initials, then that's how it should be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is he referred to without a space in publications that favour them? Is there any evidence he deliberately would have chosen no space, as opposed to simply following his publishers' preferences? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already provided sources showing that spaces are used frequently. There is no preference for either spaces or no spaces as far as I can see. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN should trump an inappropriate insistence on the MOS when it is wrong. This kind of petty needless battle distracts people from real content creation.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A discussion at the MOS page has determined that there is no reason not to apply or to retain our MOS": that's not quite true: a small discusison has yet to reach a consensus on the matter. Let things run their course without pre-judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong don't care - the MOS doesn't "prescribe" and is hardly "unequivocal": "In most Wikipedia articles ..."; "There are, however, exceptions ..."; "These cases generally arise ..."; "If spaces are used ...". Life is too short for this. --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See policy WP:NC regarding consistency as to why it is important. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with it. It points to "the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles", which points to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), which contains WP:INITS, which contains all the equivocal statements I quoted. You'd have difficulty moving me from my strong-don't-care commment on this one, Rob. --Stfg (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that it should have been a simple and non-controversial move. Here on Wikipedia, per the guideline, we include a space between consecutive initials, unless there is reason to make exception for "artistic" reasons. Without justification to WP:IAR, of which there is none in this case, we follow the guideline. The only reasons given to ignore the guideline is personal preference and WP:ILIKEIT. This discussion needn't (shouldn't?) have taken place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an answer to what I wrote. Now please stop badgering me. --Stfg (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're wasting your time if you don't care, but my response does address the valid reasons for exception at WP:INITS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to know why I am spending my time here. Now please stop badgering me. --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let's summarise the situation. Some publications use spaces; some don't. Some use full stops; some don't. This is not an ENGVAR issue, and please, if you're not British (I am), don't be fooled into believing it is by the editors above claiming that British English exclusively does things this way. It most certainly does not. It's pure personal preference. I, for instance, prefer spaces and no full stops when writing outside Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia has its own style guidelines, which say we should generally use spaces and full stops unless there is good reason not to. In this case, there is not. Hornung's name is no more commonly written one way than it is another. It looks ridiculous if Wikipedia titles its articles according to personal preference, which is essentially what the opposers (when they're not falsely claiming that British English doesn't use spaces) are urging us to do here. Best to use the same style for all articles. This article should have been moved to the house style with no debate. I have moved many articles in this way and I don't recall anybody ever objecting. This is a storm in a teacup, not helped by false claims that one style or another is correct British English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see all that big of a difference between the two forms. Canuck89 (talk to me) 23:37, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change of venue[edit]

As this debate cannot ultimately be about a single article, I encourage everyone to contribute to the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC: Does the guideline for consecutive initials WP:INITS contradict WP:ENGVAR?, rather than here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E._W._Hornung/Archive_1&oldid=1136684203"