Talk:John O'Connor

Requested move of John Joseph O'Connor articles

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved the last two pages as per consensus. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

– WP:BISHOP provides that if disambiguation is required for bishops of the Latin Church, the name of their order is appended to the title, i.e., "(bishop)". If further disambiguation is required, the name of the episcopal see is included, i.e., "(bishop of See)" or "(archbishop of See)" as appropriate. Accordingly, I propose that John O'Connor (cardinal) be moved to John O'Connor (archbishop of New York). (I would have proposed John O'Connor (bishop), but that would still be ambiguous with the article currently titled John Joseph O'Connor (bishop).)
 * John O'Connor (cardinal) → John O'Connor (archbishop of New York)
 * John Joseph O'Connor (bishop) → John J. O'Connor (bishop of Newark)
 * John J. O'Connor → John J. O'Connor (politician)

I propose that John Joseph O'Connor (bishop) be moved to John J. O'Connor (bishop of Newark) per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BISHOP. The bishop is typically referred to as John J. O'Connor rather than John Joseph O'Connor and the proposed parenthetical is necessary to distinguish the subject from the former Archbishop of New York. It is worth noting that retaining the full middle name in the title would not preclude further disambiguation as the middle name is shared with the former Archbishop of New York.

I propose that John J. O'Connor be moved to John J. O'Connor (politician) as the existing title is ambiguous with the two bishops and I see no basis for the article meeting the standards of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Finally, this may be beyond the scope of a requested move, but I would propose that, after links have been corrected, John Joseph O'Connor (bishop) and John J. O'Connor be redirected to John O'Connor. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support all. Seems reasonable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose all first cardinal being the highest position he held, it is equivalent to bishop as a dismabiguator. If there were multiple John O'Conner's who were cardinals, then we could discuss a move to the see. Without the need to move the cardinal, the subsequent moves are also unnecessary and would create additional unneeded disambiguation. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * After seeing the below comments, I'm fine with a move on the second two, and can see how it would be beneficial. I don't necessarily "support" it, but I'm not opposed anymore. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support latter two, oppose first. I agree with Tony about cardinal being a good disambiguation. However, the other two are still required. "John J. O'Connor" is clearly ambiguous so the politician article needs disambiguation. And I have seen nothing to disagree with "John J. O'Connor" being the common name of the Newark bishop. Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support all per the well reasoned nomination. Both the Newark and New York guys were called John Joseph O'Connor, so have to be disambiguated from each other. They're both bishops too, so we have to specify bishop of where. On the "cardinal" issue, that is probably a bit confused. WP:BISHOP sort of implies that we should only use "bishop", "priest" or "deacon" as disambiguators - it specifically says we should not use "archbishop", unless it's the full "archbishop of XXX" disambiguator. The only other ambiguous American cardinal is named John Wright (bishop of Pittsburgh), which backs that up. That said, though, Category:Italian cardinals has numerous entries disambiguated by "cardinal", so it's a bit of a mess. All in all I think moving the NY guy form "cardinal" to "archbishop of New York" will be beneficial though, as it's crystal clear what is meant and consistent with the Pittsburgh one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Following comments by Cuchullain, as well as Jenks24, it seems the consensus is to retain the "cardinal", so I'm changing my vote to concur with that. Changed to Support latter two, oppose first. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the first; support the other two. I think "cardinal" is the better, clearer disambiguation here - it won't be confused for anybody else. However, the other two articles need to move as they're ambiguous.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - given the preference for "cardinal" I have opened a new RM at Talk:Carlo Visconti (bishop) to bring others into line with that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (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.