Talk:William Lort Mansel

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Requested move 23 July 2019[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved – Rationale supported, and only mild reservation expressed. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Mansel (bishop) → William Lort Mansel – WP:MIDDLENAME Use most common form of name: compare Google hits for ["William Mansel" "Bishop of Bristol"] and ["William Lort Mansel" "Bishop of Bristol"] (Nothing in WP:NCWC, cited for the move, contradicts this practice.) LookLook36 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD: for your consideration LookLook36 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure simply comparing Google hits is necessarily how we're supposed to do this. There are any number of official sources which routinely list full names; moreso for people of that era, moreso the longer after the subject's death. I took a look for sources in Google Books from 1798–1830. This record from the Lords uses just one forename, for instance: [1]. Again, this contemporaneous record: [2]. I'm not convinced. DBD 21:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD: There are also contemporaneous sources using "William-Lort Lord Bishop of Bristol" in 1810, and "William Lort Mansel" in 1806. LookLook36 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LookLook36: Yeah, but both in highly formal publications. I don't know. We don't replicate the 18th/19th century convention of hyphenating forenames here... So I wonder why we would replicate the convention of using all forenames? Encyclopaediae at the time would always have titled biographies with the subject's full name; yet we do not. DBD 11:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD: I take your point, but surely, if that's how he was generally known at the time – even if in a different time, with more formal conventions – then that's how he was generally known, we follow it. If he were around now, as Bill Mansel (or, having taken a salaried academic position at an American university, William L. Mansel), he'd be delivering his sermons in rolled-up sleeves. It's not for us to remake the past in our own image. LookLook36 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:CONSISTENCY, this is the style we've adopted for every other Timothy Michael Dolan is the quickest example that comes to mind, but most others follow. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest, every other what? Dolan is at Timothy M. Dolan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh. I'm sorry, I swore I remembered Dolan being the full name. I was probably thinking of Justin Francis Rigali or Wilton Daniel Gregory, or a few other prominent American bishops. Looking closer in the category, we seem to have a mix of full name vs. initial vs. common name. I'm still in support though, using a full middle name is common enough within the category for consistency to apply and it's a natural disambiguation. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.