Talk:Joseph MacNeil

Requested move 31 October 2016

 * 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 with support after full RM period. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk ) 02:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Neil MacNeil → Joseph MacNeil – Moving to common name. – 207.161.217.209 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ I see no indication this is the "common name". -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fairly easily established by a quick google search. Not once is that phrase used in the first two pages of results aside from in Catholic-Hierarchy, a self-published directory which I believe always uses the subject's full name irrespective of common usage. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess we can continue this discussion here, ? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on whether to move this or not. However filed this as an Uncontroversial technical requests. I don't believe it meets the criteria so I simply want it to be discussed before being moved. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It clearly meets the definition of "technical" at WP:MOVE. So on what basis do you believe it to be controversial? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, since an editor has contested this move, the focus from here on out should be to provide references of evidence proving that this new title is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject of the article. From what I can see as an editor who helps at WP:RMTR from time-to-time, Zackmann08 was probably correct in contesting this due to lack of presented evidence alone, as well as the fact that how the article itself is written doesn't back up this claim either. Steel1943  (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If this was not appropriate as an uncontroversial technical request, it is presumably either controversial or not a technical request. We can see it is not the latter, so I am enquiring as to the rationale behind the assertion of the former.


 * As it was a technical request to move the article to a red link (which it was until you created a redirect), the standard needed to move is not as high as you suggest (which is why such a decision is so easily reversible via WP:RM). And the fact that it is the common name is evident by a 10-second Google search. Naturally, I didn't link to every page in the Google search results because to do so would be a waste of both my time and the time of our volunteers at WP:RM, and it would be excessive when the standard of proof is so low in the case of an uncontroversial technical request. If you would like that now, however, I am happy to provide. Let me know.


 * With respect to the article not "back[ing] up this claim either", that should come as no surprise as the article is using the subject's full name on the first reference and the subject's surname on subsequent references in accordance with MOS:BIO.


 * So my question to still stands: on what basis does he or she believe it to be controversial? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are bordering on WP:IDHT. It has been explained multiple times by multiple different people now. The ENTIRE article supports them being referred to as "Joseph Neil MacNeil" which alone is grounds for it not being an uncontroversial move. This is really simple and you are making is so dramatic and complicated. The request for the move has been made now take a breath, sit back and let a WP:CONSENSUS be reached. Continuing to argue with myself and is pointless. I have said my peace. Let a consensus be reached and then the page will be either be renamed or not depending on how the discussion resolves itself. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering that this is the first time you have made any attempt to my question here – the first time you have edited here since I wrote that question, in fact – and only one other person has commented, that is flatly untrue.


 * Is that to suggest that there is another way that the article could have been written (with substantively the same content) that would not support it, while remaining in compliance with MOS:BIO?


 * The guideline section to which you linked is titled "Failure or refusal to 'get the point'". Our conversation thus far has been: (1) I said that that the fact that this is the common name is easily established by a quick Google search; (2) you said that it did not meet the criteria to be classified as an uncontroversial technical request; (3) I asked on what basis you believed it to be controversial; and (4) you replied and suggested that my asking was "making is [sic] so dramatic and complicated". I'm not sure why this need be dramatic and I fail to see why it is inappropriate to ask you to explain your position. And if you're going to suggest that I 'failed or refused to get to the point' before you so much as replied to the one question I had, I hope you can back up that assertion. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: All indications are that the more common name in usage is Joseph MacNeil,, for example.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2016 (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.