Talk:Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1885)

Requested move 20 July 2022

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1885). Clear consensus to move although no consensus on the new title. I chose the option that I think better meets WP:NCPDAB. Per WP:OTHEROPTIONS any editor can create a new move request at any time. Regarding the primary topic issue or possible move of Eli Lilly, a new request that includes that page will be needed to get as much participation as possible. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Eli Lilly (industrialist) → Eli Lilly Jr. – The current disambiguation of "(industrialist)" is not adequate to separate this Eli Lilly from his grandfather Eli Lilly, who also was in the pharmaceutical industry and founded Eli Lilly and Company. Plenty of sources call Eli Lilly (born 1885) "Eli Lilly Jr." to distinguish him from his grandfather, so it serves as a strong WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although occasionally referenced as "Jr.", he was most commonly known as simply "Eli Lilly", per the title of his biography — Eli Lilly: A Life, 1885 – 1977. I would support Eli Lilly (industrialist) → Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1885) and, since he arguably left a larger historical footprint than his company founder grandfather, Eli Lilly, who died 124 years ago, would also support Eli Lilly (industrialist) → Eli Lilly and a move of his grandfather's main title header Eli Lilly → Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1838). As another option, since the name "Eli Lilly" is often associated with the company, I would also support Eli Lilly as a redirect to Eli Lilly and Company and the headers for the two men's entries as Eli Lilly → Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1838) and Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1885). Finally, I would also support the WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC option, with the Eli Lilly (disambiguation) page main title header at Eli Lilly and the two men's headers at Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1838) and Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1885). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are going to disambiguate further, we would want to just drop "industrialist", since it could be more succinctly described as Eli Lilly (born 1885) and Eli Lilly (born 1838), per WP:TITLEDAB. However, I still think "Jr." makes a lot more sense since WP:NATURAL states it is fine to use a less common but still used alternative name for the subject, and there is strong reasons not to use birth year as a disambiguator per WP:NCPDAB which states "Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it." Using the Jr. is a more natural solution that reduces the clunky parentheticals. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Although WP:TITLEDAB does advise the use of succinct parenthetical qualifiers, dropping "industrialist" would indeed run contrary to WP:NCPDAB, thus "industrialist" or a similar term, such as "manufacturer", is certainly needed in addition to the birth year. A glance at any dab page which has name entries that require this type of disambiguation will confirm the point. In the case at hand, leaving the 19th-century grandfather Eli Lilly as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Eli Lilly (disambiguation) and indicating the lesser-used form "Eli Lilly Jr." for his better-known grandson, does not seem to be the most intuitive resolution. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're totally write about WP:NCPDAB, my mistake. I disagree about the "Jr". not being a better solution than a (in my opinion) long parenthetical, but I appreciate the kind response to me being wrong about the policy regarding the use of industrialist. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate your kind reply and, since requested moves are consensus-based, other editors may ultimately decide that your nomination represents the better proposal. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per WP:NATURAL Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Since his grandfather Eli Lilly is appears to be (is he?) the primary topic, and (industrialist) does not really disambiguate from his grandfather, we need something else. I can find multiple examples of Eli Lilly Jr. in the books. No such user (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If the grandfather is not a primary topic (and there are reasonable doubts about it), I still think that we should take an exception from WP:NCPDAB Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, bold mine – the only two notable Eli Lillys were relatives and rather famous chemical industrialists, so Eli Lilly (1838–1898) and Eli Lilly (1885–1977) would work just fine. Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1838) is a mouthful and looks kind of silly. No such user (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1838) and Eli Lilly (industrialist, born 1885) per Roman Spinner. We don't generally use date ranges to disambiguate people. This is the form we use if we need to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't generally, but don't you think it's silly to include "industrialist" to the only two people we need to distinguish? It's WP:CONSISTENCY gone wild, and I'm strongly opposing such solution. No such user (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. I think it's helpful to readers to know who they were. And consistency is a good thing! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)