Talk:Amos Fortune

Removed Early Life Information
Removed, once again, information about his birth on the Gold Coast and his life in Africa, since all of it is fiction. Nothing is known about the early life of Amos Fortune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedris (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
I took the liberty of deleting the "Early Life" section, as all of the information was fictitious, having been created by Elizabeth Yates for her book. Nothing is known about his life in Africa before being brought to America.Prlambert76 (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 to Amos Fortune. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Amos Fortune (citizen of Jaffrey) → Amos Fortune (d. 1801) – Because, basically, "citizen of Jaffrey" is to my thinking altogether too specific in this instance. It isn't the worst possible way to specify someone, and if we had 20,000 articles on different "Amos Fortune"s out there it might make sense, but I really don't think that the association with Jaffrey, NH is so important that it has to be included in the title of the article. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The current title is, as the nominator notes, too specific. However, "(d. 1801)" does not properly disambiguate.  There are no other people named "Amos Fortune" born in any years.  The two other entities at Amos Fortune are a comic book character and a book, not people.  Therefore, I suggest Amos Fortune (person) as is usual practice in such cases (rare that they are).  Cf. Antiphon (person), Antoine Graves (person), Arcadia Lake (person), Rolling Thunder (person), Matilda House (person).  Alternatively, Amos Fortune (man) might work.  —  AjaxSmack   21:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Amos Fortune (person) would be fine by me as well. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yikes. I really don't like (person). How about Amos Fortune (New Hampshire)? Does that make him look too much like a politician? Or looking over the rest of, we could do Amos Fortune (former slave) or just go by profession and say Amos Fortune (tanner). --BDD (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those really concisely disambiguate the person from the other non-human entities, i.e. they imply that there are other people named "Amos Fortune". In addition, "tanner" is unintentional red herring since he is not notable for his profession; "former slave" is a little better.  —  AjaxSmack   00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But your examples all deal with people who share names with non-human entities. In this case, the conflict is with a fictional character, who could also be described as a person. It's a bit of a gray area, I admit. --BDD (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Move- Amos Fortune → Amos Fortune (disambiguation), & Amos Fortune (citizen of Jaffrey) → Amos Fortune; as the only real life person, and the subject of Amos Fortune, Free Man, he is clearly the current primary topic. Dru of Id (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal. Real people should never play second fiddle to fictitious characters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Dru of Id's solution. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If others believe that being real is enough to be primary, I don't oppose this solution in this case. However, this is not always the case (e.g., Peter Parker vs. Peter Parker (physician)).  —  AjaxSmack   01:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it's a good decision here, but Spider-Man is clearly the primary topic for Peter Parker. --BDD (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2012 (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.