User talk:Nunh-huh: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Bcorr (talk | contribs)
about Billie Burke
Nunh-huh (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:


Actually, there's no hard and fast rule, but a person's full name is generally not considered trivia and usually goes first. See [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]], [[Mother Teresa]], [[Groucho Marx]], and [[Ringo Starr]], and then [[John Wayne]] for contrast. As a compromise, I propose following the Groucho Marx example: "'''Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke''', known as '''Billie Burke'''" -- [[User:Bcorr|BCorr ¤ Брайен ]] 22:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, there's no hard and fast rule, but a person's full name is generally not considered trivia and usually goes first. See [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]], [[Mother Teresa]], [[Groucho Marx]], and [[Ringo Starr]], and then [[John Wayne]] for contrast. As a compromise, I propose following the Groucho Marx example: "'''Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke''', known as '''Billie Burke'''" -- [[User:Bcorr|BCorr ¤ Брайен ]] 22:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:These seem to be done exactly backwards. A person's "real" name is the one they are known by, and it matches the title of their article. It's very jarring to click on "Billie Burke" and start reading about "Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke". Why, indeed, one might ask, "Burke"? Why not "Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke Ziegfeld"? The answer: no one's looking for that name. When names are "close" like Richard Starkey and Ringo Starr, and relatively common knowledge, it's not so jarring, but "Billy Burke" and (MWEAB) are sufficiently different, and (MWEAB) so unknown, that expecting one and finding the other is disconcerting. One ought to take this into account, and I think the "reveal" of an utterly trivial name, like (MWEAB), which was never used by, or known to, the public, ought to be within the narrative. It just clutters up the topic sentence otherwise, for no discernable reason. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 22:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:51, 25 February 2004

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
  • If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 01:51, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)


Hi, I just noticed your edit on George W. Bush. Thanks! Nice work. Meelar 02:48, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Kudos on your patience with the Benito Juárez burger flipper. Let's hope he stops back and reads your helpful reply. Hajor 20:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I saw on the Diff was not what got reverted. I was going to put it back, but Minesweeper beat me to it. RickK 03:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


About Billie Burke

Actually, there's no hard and fast rule, but a person's full name is generally not considered trivia and usually goes first. See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Mother Teresa, Groucho Marx, and Ringo Starr, and then John Wayne for contrast. As a compromise, I propose following the Groucho Marx example: "Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke, known as Billie Burke" -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These seem to be done exactly backwards. A person's "real" name is the one they are known by, and it matches the title of their article. It's very jarring to click on "Billie Burke" and start reading about "Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke". Why, indeed, one might ask, "Burke"? Why not "Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke Ziegfeld"? The answer: no one's looking for that name. When names are "close" like Richard Starkey and Ringo Starr, and relatively common knowledge, it's not so jarring, but "Billy Burke" and (MWEAB) are sufficiently different, and (MWEAB) so unknown, that expecting one and finding the other is disconcerting. One ought to take this into account, and I think the "reveal" of an utterly trivial name, like (MWEAB), which was never used by, or known to, the public, ought to be within the narrative. It just clutters up the topic sentence otherwise, for no discernable reason. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)