Talk:Patrick Stewart (soldier)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 United States military history task force

Contents

[edit] Reversion

I have reverted the last edit. Firstly the 'new information' is totally unsourced. It looks useful but must be externally sourced if it is to remain. The 'Background' section is a straight lift from a website and therefore a copyvio. It is also messy. Additonal facts from this section should be integrated into the article more cleanly. --BlueValour 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I think this article should be renamed. It doesn't make sense to have included his military rank. I suggest renaming it to Patrick Stewart (Wiccan).--KrossTalk 06:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article being renamed. However, I strongly prefer Patrick Stewart (US Army). BlueValour 15:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Patrick Stewart (soldier)? Not sure I've seen any articles disambiguated with US Army...but I agree it needs to be renamed. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New sources

Philadelphia Inquirer Sat july 15 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/religion/15043392.htm Another new source this from the BBC on this issue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5405328.stm Hypnosadist 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Move

OPPOSE His rank is important as it is part of why he died, and i just don't see a reason for the move.Hypnosadist 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, we don't generally include ranks with article titles (but they do frequently go in the first sentence). See George II, Julius Caesar, etc. No one is saying that we downplay his rank or service, only that the article title conform to general standards. -- nae'blis 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my own nomination and statements above, obviously. -- nae'blis 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support BlueValour 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support article names should be First Last (DistinguishingNoun). See Alvin York. However, if the Sgt. part is how he is generally known, a redirect as in Sgt. York would be totally appropriate. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - after Move a redirect with the present article title is automagically created. BlueValour 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok i see your points, can we have (wiccan soldier) or (US Army/Wiccan) not just soldier as both are part of his Notability and life. If that can be done i would change my vote.Hypnosadist 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmm, I would just go (soldier), to differentiate between Patrick Stewart (actor). I think this is a case where less is more. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok move it but i think US Army is better that soldier.Hypnosadist 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no reason not to make redirects from Patrick Stewart (Wiccan) and Patrick Stewart (US Army) under the circumstances, as it'll help our search engine results. If no one else objects in a day or two I'll make the move... -- nae'blis 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose extra links. There has been no need for these links up to now and I don't like creating links for the sake of it. The original article will continue as a link after the move. I also think that identifying someone by their religion is somewhat unencyclopaedic. BlueValour 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The Wiccan one, in particular, makes sense because he's partially famous because of his religious affiliation. I wouldn't want to do it for every article, but this'll improve our search engine results in this case. I'm ambivalent on the US Army one, and won't create it myself. Redirects are cheap, and help keep us from getting duplicate articles. -- nae'blis 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Although the title looks better with his military rank than it would with a disamb word in brackets, no WP article uses titles. Patrick Stewart (Wiccan) wouldn't do, because it is more common to disambiguate by occupation than by religion (and, as a matter of fact, do we know the religion of the other Stewart? What if he's a Wiccan, too? :-) – Alensha  talk 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. (US Army) is too specific, unless there are two notable persons with that name in different militaries. I think a redirect (Wiccan) is appropriate, though. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Talk%7EPatrick_Stewart_%28soldier%29_f386.html"