Talk:William T.G. Morton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] More information?

Would be interested in the following revisions:

 -- relationship with Jackson
 -- status of his dental/medical training if any
 -- more on his futile struggle with Jackson over "discovery"
 -- his penniless status at death

Mfbabcock 02:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Great contributions

 -- I've heard that there is question whether he ever attended
        Dental School and whether he was actually accepted
        to study medicine in Boston.  Anyone who knows about this?

Mfbabcock 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mount Auburn Cemetery is mainly in WATERTOWN and partly in CAMBRIDGE.Mfbabcock (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Move to William T. G. Morton ?

  • William T.G. Morton → William T. G. Morton — Naming conventions — -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Koavf, you know by now (since you insist on moving every abbreviated article to have a space and have been met with resistance) that this is not uncontroversial. There is no agreement that names with abbreviations have to have spaces and most of the respected style guides are either neutral or support not having a space. Proof has to be given that Morton used a space in his name. TJ Spyke 09:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Uncontroversial No, I don't; the MoS is clear. There was an AfD to discuss the issue and (just like every other time it's been discussed) there was no consensus to change the rules. There is a naming convention that addresses this, and the article should be moved in accordance. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The supposedly "clarity" you mention in the MoS is also disputed guidance, and has been for quite some time. Hardly the basis for making "uncontroverial" moves. older ≠ wiser 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again This has been brought up several times and never changed, and it's still the standard. The MoS is, in fact, clear about this topic, even if you don't like it. If the standard was ever changed, I would be happy to move pages to a new standard. In the meantime, this is what the MoS says, so article titles should reflect that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, what you consider to be the "standard" is disputed, and has remained disputed for a very long time. Simply because there is no agreement on replacement language does not mean the disputed language can be considered as uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously controversial/contested, and the extended discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Initials looks to be heading towards a consensus against imposing this kind of stylistic rule. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus? The conversation died about five weeks ago, and had half a dozen editors involved; that is hardly "heading towards a consensus." There was an RfC, it has since been taken down from the active discussions and there was no change in policy; this page should be moved in conformity with the standards. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Except that the guideline you are using as the basis for making an "uncontroversial" move is still disputed and has been for a very long time. Nothing has changed. No matter what you might like, a disputed guideline cannot be used to justify a move as uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Disputed? Someone periodically brings this up, as is the case for any and every standard, rule, or convention on Wikipedia, and it is never changed. Since there is a rule, it's been the case for years, and it there is no reason to think that it's going to be changed, this article should be moved to conform with the rule as is. If, someday, somehow, this rule is changed in a way relevant to this article, it will be non-controversial to move it again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, disputed and you should know as well as anyone as you have been party to many of the previous discussions. The plain fact of the matter is that the practice IS disputed and is unsuitable to use as justification for uncontroversial moves. older ≠ wiser 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's notThe last discussion about this standard is long over, there was not even a remote consensus to change, and the standard stayed as is. There is no controversy about this and the MoS is clear. The page should be moved. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm, Yes it is. You might want to check again. The disputed points have been removed from the guideline. There is no basis for using that no longer accepted guidance as a basis for making uncontroversial moves. older ≠ wiser 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)