Talk:Winston S. Churchill

This is a PEN NAME
This is NOT repeat NOT just a variant of Churchill's name.

It is very specifically his pen name - he adopted it to distinguish his books from those of the then much more famous (!) American novelist of the same name!!!!!

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not dispute that. Unfortunately for you however, it is entirely irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See Winston Churchill (novelist). The "S." occurs ONLY as a pen name - and is therefore only relevant at all in the context of the specific article dealing with Sir Winston as a writer. It is not entirely irrelevant to the "main" article, but it is clear where the primary relevance lies. Sorry about the tiny mind remark - uncalled for, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Getting angry above about it doesn't change the undeniable fact that it needs to go to the main subject. You've also broken WP:3RR.  And I hate musicals, especially the one with the singing nuns.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your love (or otherwise) of musicals has, of course, precisely the same relevance to this argument as your (or even my) anger, or even which one of us broke WP:3RR first. Winston Churchill as writer is in this instance the "main article" - since the redirect can only refer to that subject and has nothing whatever to do with the "main subject" of the other article, which is (very properly) primarily about his political career. Is this worth asking for arbitration? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably be better for you just to drop it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reluctant to leave an error that reflects so badly on its perpetrator in place - so out of the purest kindness I am constrained to insist that the correct redirection remain when all the dust has settled. Unless an independent arbitrator deems otherwise, of course ... Actually, it would be better to have no redirect from Sir Winston's pen name at all (just delete the redirect altogether) than have it direct to an article (mostly) about his political career (a rather comprehensively unrelated subject). --Soundofmusicals (talk)


 * Reverted redirect to original in view of above - added suggested note to lead of Winston Churchill. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I meant it should be only in Winston Churchill as writer, and not to be in boldface in Winston Churchill, since the redirect goes only to the former.-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying here sooner. I was scandalously prevented from editing by an admin who ought to have known better who took a user's barefaced lies at face value after that user lied and then personally attacked me without reason.  Anyway, no, you can't redirect an article off its main obvious target.  It's just not happening.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on, you need a better reason than that. I may be an uninvolved 3O giver but I'm willing to get my feet wet and have reverted this. BTW can you remove the bold mention in the main Churchill page per what I replied above? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to be just a variation of name, not an entirely separate identity created for writing, so redirect to the biographical article. Peter James (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Barney Sorry to see you had to grab that brief window of opportunity to continue this edit war. I honestly thought better of you than that. Appreciate you feel passionately about this one, but could we have just ONE constructive argument on your side. He is simply NOT CALLED Winston S. Churchill anywhere but on the covers of his books. The "S" is not in fact a "middle initial" but part of his full surname (Spencer-Churchill), which again he never used. All you have said in reply is that "this is not relevant" - in what way is a pen name of an author not relevant to a discussion of his writings? Much MORE relevant - surely, than to a general discussion of his life, especially when certain aspects of that life are so very much more important.


 * @Ugog Thank you for "getting your feet wet". The mention in the main article was, I admit, added because of my misunderstanding of what you meant - but I added it NOT solely on your instructions, but because it seemed to me to be a good idea. I still think it DOES add some clarity to the lead of the main article - if we mention his work as a writer in that place, what's wrong with a mention of the pen name he wrote under? But I certainly won't edit war over this one! By all means delete it if you think it is inappropriate (I certainly won't revert!) - on balance, I would like it to stay, all the same.


 * @Peter Thank you for your "fourth" opinion! At least we have something on the other side that looks a little more like an argument, and less like a blank assertion! Sir Winston's pen name does indeed "establish an entirely separate identity" - entirely separate, that is, from the identity of the American novelist, who was an established and best-selling writer at a time when "our" W.C. was just starting out as a writer. It is very specifically not "just a variation of name" - although it might have been if Sir Winston himself (or anyone else!) had used in in other connections. As it is - it is not, so far as I have been able to tell, anything but a pen name. (Unless y0u count the name of the U.S. Navy destroyer). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To distinguish from Winston Churchill (novelist) yes, but not as a separate identity of Winston Churchill (unlike, for example, Charles Morin). Peter James (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand the distinction - but that doesn't make it somehow less of a pen name - in fact there are many pen names in the same category as this one, where initials replace full names, or the "real" identity of the author is not concealed. If we didn't have a separate article for Churchill as a writer, then fair enough, but since in this case we DO have a specific article for this very subject... If people were in the habit of referring to him as Winston S. Churchill in other contexts (or if he had sometimes signed himself that way - except, perhaps, on the flyleaf of a copy of one of his books) then the "variant name" argument would have more force - but apparently he didn't. Perhaps the most important reason is simply that the more specific redirect is more useful anyway. A Wikipedia user who comes across the name "Winston S. Churchill" in that form has very likely got it off the cover of a book anyway. If this isn't the case, then the "writer" article has plenty of linking (in the hatnote and the lead) to the more general article - and the user has gained at least one interesting fact in the process. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For an example of the reasons why a redirect should always go to the most directly relevant page consider the following sentence, complete with links - "For instance Winston Churchill wrote under the name Winston S. Churchill to distinguish his writings from those of the American novelist of the same name, who was at the time much better known." Linking the three related topics in a sentence like this is far neater and more straightforward if the pen name redirects to the page about the man as a writer, rather than his general biography. If something works, it is a good sign it is probably right. (I said that.) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would expect it to lead to the biography of the person that name refers to, unless the pen name was part of an identity separate from that defined by the biography. In the sentence you've provided, there could be a piped link to the article, maybe on "his writings". Peter James (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There could indeed, and in a typical situation, where we wouldn't have a separate article about the writings, that's what we'd do, of course. In fact, if you think about it, it's what we already DO do. The separate article is equivalent to a (hypothetical) comprehensive section on WC's writings in the main article. In fact it was most probably originally forked off when the main WC article started to get too long. So the redirect to the forked article is the same as to a piped link to an equivalent section. (Only, in this case far more useful, of course). Charles Morin on the other hand, is a piped redirect, just because we don't have a separate article on WC's paintings for it to redirect to. If we did, it would clearly go there instead. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it takes a very special level of incompetence to redirect a page away from its obvious target, violate 3RR, personally attack people, post an incoherent moan on the talk page and complain about "ew, lack of arguments" - when the contrasted shambling irrelevancies of your so-called arugment" contrasts with the elegant simplicity and undeniable truthfulness of having the redirect to the main article - yet it seems that you have plumbed these depths of utter stupidity.  Now, since I can't edit at the moment having been infinitely blocked due to the bahaviour of yet more other idiots, I require that you please point the page back to its correct target.  Thanks for your understanding. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You keep saying the main biography, with its (very proper) emphasis on WC's political career is the obvious target. The trouble is that this isn't obvious at all. You "do not dispute" that "Winston S. Churchill" is not just a variant of Churchill's name, but specifically his pen name - you just say that this is "irrelevant". How is it irrelevant? In what way is a writer's pen name irrelevant to the works written under that pen name? Whatever the rights of the case this is certainly not self-evident. The "simple" answer (elegant or otherwise) is that the primary relevance of "Winston S. Churchill" is NOT to either individual famous person called "Winston Churchill", but to the works written published under that pen name. Truth and truthfulness are different things. I may say "truthfully" (because I believe it to be true) that this redirect needs to go to the correct (i.e. the most directly relevant) target. You might say (equally truthfully) that it should redirect instead to a more general article that is mainly on quite another topic, because it should, from your point of view. Neither of us is a "liar" - we just differ on this particular question. If you can't come to grips with this distinction, so that everyone who disagrees with you is a "liar" (and this is a problem that is not restricted to this page - as you put it "other idiots" on other pages are much less tolerant than we have been here) then you will not be able to function as a Wiki editor - that is the truly "elegant" simplicity of your current situation. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * - People who fail to take me seriously will suffer the consequences. You do not seem to understand that I will achieve my aims, and you will not get in the way. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless "your aims" can somehow be changed to centre around the improvement of Wikipedia - call I humbly suggest you might like to take them somewhere else. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have made some adjustments to the page Winston Churchill (disambiguation) and redirected this page (Winston S. Churchill) there. Based on the incoming links to "Winston S." (numerous of which were apparently intended to point to the main article on Churchill) that seemed most prudent. It is my hope that the added links and explanation on the disambig page will prove to be adequate to address the concerns above. Thanks to all for all the work they do on WP. KConWiki (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)