Jump to content

Talk:CCH Pounder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:C. C. H. Pounder)

Honorary Doctorate

[edit]

On October 15th, 2011, C.C.H. Pounder received an Honorary Doctorate from Ithaca College. Not sure where to include this in her page, but it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.106.85 (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2016

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


C. C. H. Pounder → CCH Pounder – I am gobsmacked that this request is even necessary, but talk page discussions (here) are at a standstill. I made a move, pursuant to an OTRS request, and after confirming that the proposed name was in compliance with our guideline WP:SPACEINITS. I am aware that we generally prefer full stops in name, but there is an exception in case An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person. I checked the first 30 entries in a Google search and only one (other than the Wikipedia entry) used C.C.H. Pounder. The rest used CCH Pounder. I also note that her name appears in 123 articles as CCH Pounder:

I won't list all 123

Only one of those articles:

uses C.C.H. Pounder.

I made the move, @Robsinden: reverted without initiating a discussion, and has declined to revert the error, despite extensive explanation.

I also request a trout for Robsinden for wasting your time S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple check of "What links here" shows that the nom is incorrect in this claim. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crumpled Fire: I did a search of articles for "CCH Pounder" which will return that phrase, as well as "C.C.H. Pounder". That search returned 124 items of which only Birdland produced the second option. Including the spaces does provide hits for "C. C. H. Pounder".--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Best to stick with our house style for this unless there is a source where she discusses that this is her preferred style. Usage of of the non-spaced, non-punctuated version, although extremely common, is not ubiquitous, see these from reputable sources such as Chicago Tribune, NPR and the BFI, who are also all clearly using their house style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in addition to the sources I mention, I'm 100% convinced that if you look at the end credits of films she has appeared in, you will see a mixture of styles used to render the name. I believe Sight & Sound duplicate credits directly, see this one as an example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rob Sinden that we should follow house style, which is why I proposed the move. The "house style" is a full name, but provides exceptions in the case that initials are common. It then discusses whether,in those cases, to use full stops or not. It specifically identifies examples such as "CC Sabathia". That style is appropriate if used by "overwhelming majority of reliable sources". Rob Sinden concedes it is "extremely common", but then claims it is "not ubiquitous". However, "ubiquitous" is nowhere mentioned in the guideline. Which means, of course, that Rob Sinden's argument is essentially a "support" even those the initial word was "oppose".--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're WP:WIKILAWYERING now. It's clear that our "house style" is to include a full stop and a space after each initial, unless we make the exceptions as stated the guideline WP:SPACEINITS. I !vote not to make the exception. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate the name-calling. Please stick to policy based arguments, rather than mudslinging. House style is decribed by the guideline, which prefers full names, while allowing for initials when those are common. In the case of initials, it prefers full stops, except when the lack of full stops is the "overwhelming majority". In other words, our guideline supports my move. Your opposition is based upon your misreading of the guideline, inventing standards such as "ubiquitous". I vote to follow the guideline, not your misreading of it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that trying to turn my "Oppose" to a "Support" on what I may or may not mean by "house style" is Wikilawyering? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be good for other readers to read the guideline and see how it applies. I think of Wikilawyering as trying to reach a conclusion opposite to the sensible one by torturing what sometimes is inartful language of the guideline or policy. That isn't happening in this case. Most places call her CCH Pounder. Our guideline states this is acceptable. Let's do the right thing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that WP:CONSISTENCY for article titles is policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I get that this is going against the wishes of the subject, and that may be the consensus, but I cannot let arguments like this go unchallenged. Of course "People's intials are almost always put with periods" for the simple fact that most people who use initials in their name use periods. Very few do not, and per policy, if An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person then we follow that usage.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: but what are you calling a reliable source for this purpose? As Rob Sinden already mentioned above, the Chicago Tribune has used periods before. A search across the NY Times[1] shows that they most often use either "C. C. H." or "C C H" in their articles. It's true that a raw Google search shows "CCH" more than other forms, but that's mainly bringing back IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes type results, which aren't as high quality as the NY Times. I will concede that this is a borderline case. I think there is a predominance for the proposed form, but I personally don't think it reaches the level of "overwhelming majority", particularly given that not everyone will recognise the name anyway. When I first saw this I though maybe it was some kind of hamburger, like a Quarter Pounder or whatever. It's not obvious it's a person unless you initialise it.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY and MOS:BIO, unless and until such time as we have a reliable source (e.g. a mainstream-published interview) with her stating explicitly a preference for the exact formulation "CCH Pounder". We have the equivalent for k.d. lang (not "K. D. Lang"), but the opposite of the commonly expected case was true for E. E. Cummings (not "e.e. cummings" despite his publisher loving his broken-typewriter thing as marketing gimmick). We can make exceptions but only when there's a really good reason to do so. The fact that the general RS are not consistent in treatment of Pounder's name rules out any application of "the Deadmau5 rule" (i.e., use a divergent stylization if nearly all RS use it). The very first page of Google Books results turns up plenty of cases of "C. C. H. Pounder" (or "C.C.H. Pounder", depending on house style of the publication in question) [2]. Similarly, if you do a search, you can find cases of "JRR Tolkien". It doesn't mean a thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: You indicated that you would be persuaded by a reliable source expressing a preference. This is an article written by her using that style thoughts unstrung.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Using that style" isn't the same thing and stating a clear preference for it. We have no idea if Huffington Post's editorial staff formatted it that way themselves; such publications impose their own house style on submissions. And a habit and a strong preference are not the same thing, anyway. I habitually write my initials as "S.McC.", but if a publisher changed it to "S. M." I would not object because I really don't care. We have no evidence that Pounder cares, and clear evidence that RS usage referring to her is mixed, so we have no rationale for a page move against MoS style.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:07, 8 August 2016 (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.

Requested move 20 February 2018

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to CCH Pounder per the twitter post (literally) spelling it out. The strongest opposition said this would be the only condition they would accept for moving, which swings the favour strongly to the support side. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


C. C. H. Pounder → CCH Pounder – It's been over a year and a half since the last request. Per WP:SPACEINITS, if "an overwhelming majority of reliable sources" use the "CCH Pounder" version instead of the "C. C. H. Pounder" (or "C.C.H. Pounder") version, that's the version that should be used. As indicated in the previous discussion (a few sections up) and per a recent Google search of news sources, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources (well over 95% of those I checked) use the "CCH Pounder" version.

The previous arguments that we should use our "house style" and waiting for her to express a personal preference for "CCH" over "C.C.H." or "C. C. H." fail to take into account that verifiability is a policy and our manual of style pages are only guidelines. When the overwhelming majority of reliable sources clearly show "CCH" over any other variant, we must follow policy over our house style guideline. Policy always trumps guidelines.

Please express your opinion below, followed by any support for your position. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few sections up I see a 1.5 year old discussion which was closed in favor of not moving. While consensus can change, changes to consensus generally require new evidence. What new evidence do you have from the past 1.5 years that would cause the above people to change their minds and now decide this is worth moving? --Jayron32 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: The above discussion from 1.5 years ago (it's just a few sections up from this one) failed to take into account that policy trumps guidelines. Almost all of the discussion focused on sticking to our "house style" in spite of anything that could be verified. The discussion was closed with wording that said a guideline trumped what well over 120 reliable sources showed because the subject of the article hadn't been shown to have explicitly stated a preference. The way I see it, WP:V (a policy) trumps our house style (a guideline) every single time. Period. I hope to have a more extensive discussion this time, too, as the last discussion only had a very small number of actual participants (five, if I counted correctly). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS is policy; and unless you have a reason beyond "you're just wrong!", you'll find the same results. Neither policy nor guidelines trump each other; discussion and evidence and consensus is all that matters; there is no reason to assume that some set of rules is more important than another, the only thing that really matters is that people have discussed it in a reasonable manner, weighed the evidence, and based on their own good-faith analysis of that evidence, have made a determination as to the proper course of action. "But you did it wrong!" is not a valid rebuttal to decisions reached by that process. If the discussion did not have enough participation, perhaps, but on the talk page of a actor of some small amount of fame, I wouldn't expect more than about 5 people to show up. These discussions just don't get hundreds of people who are interested in them. I mean, feel free to ask, 1.5 years is a reasonable amount of time to test the pulse again, but as I said, unless you have new reasons and new evidence that was not floated last time, I wouldn't expect a different result. --Jayron32 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely clear evidence that this is her official WP:STAGENAME and styling in accordance with the allowed exceptions shown at MOS:INITIALS, per the social media accounts and official website (in the same way we would change it per after a name change). House style be dammed - if it conflicts and is preventing us from improving this entry, then ignore it. -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
  • Oppose. No evidence presented that anything has changed since the last RM. In particular, no evidence presented that there is any deliberate or conscious decision on the part of the BLP to omit the periods, which if you look above, was the sticking point last time. Until new evidence is presented, we should not deviate from our house style.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amakuru: Per my comment, there is absolutely a "deliberate [and] conscious decision on the part of the BLP to omit the periods". I presented four different instances where the person deliberately and consciously omitted them, and all four are officially the subject doing so. You can't get much more deliberate and conscious than that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you know they deliberately and consciously did that, though? It's not enough just to show that she wrote it that way herself, or that the website says it. You have to show that she actively prefers that style and consciously wants us to write it without periods. I might write my own initials one way or another way, but without really saying people must call me that and write it that way. Personally I wouldn't care one way or the other how Wikipedia wrote my name. Anyway, please Just show us some source or evidence and then we can move on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Amakuru: So, the fact that an overwhelming majority of reliable sources verify that her name is written that way, and the subjects verified official accounts all show her name is written that way, yet you want proof it should be written that way? That's not how things work on Wikipedia. If almost all the reliable sources (including her official accounts) are indicating it should be written a specific way, then it falls on you to prove why it should be written differently than how all the reliable sources are writing it. As you wrote, "just show us some source or evidence" that it should be written how you think it should be written. Keep in mind that there will still be a redirect from the "C. C. H. Pounder" version to catch those occasional people who search for it under different formatting than is used almost everywhere. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, to answer your first question, creating a website and official social media accounts is a deliberate and conscious act. I suppose one might do them in their sleep, but you'd have to show me reliable sources showing that anyone has ever done that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, I do want proof it should be written that way. You're quoting reliable sources and verifiability to me, yet you haven't provided even one single verifiable reliable source which tells us the subject deliberately avoids periods and spaces in her name. The fact that lots of sources style it that way is in no way the same thing as a source which explicitly states that it is to be styled that way. That's the difference.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          Which is a ridiculous position. All four of her official pages/accounts I linked to have it styled that way. She had to consciously and deliberately do it that way, yet you want her to come out and make a specific statement to satisfy your ego? Do you want her to mention you by name, too? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          People like this almost always have their websites, etc., created and managed by someone else. Said hirelings are going go with the boss's preference, which might be stated or just what they see on the letterhead. A preference is not an assertion of identity in a meaningful sense; a statement in the press or somewhere else about identity and that person's name rendering, stated by that person, would be one. I dated someone who went by [this is pseudonymized, of course] Guinevere J Parkes, who never batted an eye when it was written "Guinevere J. Parkes"; she just didn't write/type it that why herself (and left dots off lots of stuff). Do not confuse a personal habit or style choice with an insistence on an inviolable identity declaration the refusal of which to follow is some kind of grave offense. That's just "I can psychically read the minds of celebrities" original research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          And yet you are telling everyone to ignore the overwhelming number of reliable sources (outside of the four personal accounts we've been discussing) that use "CCH Pounder". We aren't supposed to be inserting things into her name that aren't supported by reliable sources, and therefore verifiable. The MOS is just a guideline, but WP:RS and WP:V are policies (technically, WP:RS is part of WP:V). Any guidelines that you try to interpret to mean something that violates policy need to be rewritten to conform with policy, or the policy needs to be changed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          "Aren't supported by reliable sources" is a patently false claim. The "CCH" style is not overwhelming (see proof below), just common – and most common within entertainment publications, which have a marked habit of copy-pasting in over-stylized names (the very reason we had to implement the MOS:TM guideline, because they usually do things like Se7en, Alien3, etc., in imitation of marketing materials). In the Pounder case, however, the dotless stylization is consistent neither within major publications in the genre nor even within the same publication.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: style on her own webpage and elsewhere matches up with "The person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name" criterion in MOS:INITIALS. PamD 22:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per T.J. Miller. (Precedence; see Talk:T.J. Miller#Requested move 6 September 2017.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I support because per my research, it seems to be the subject's WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither rationale is applicable: for Miller, we have an explicit WP:ABOUTSELF statement of preference; and COMMONAME does not apply to style questions (this comes up typically a dozen times per week in RMs, so I'm guessing you don't spend much time in them). Frankly, if you tried to elevate any style matter to the level of policy (COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT policy) people would lose so much of their shit that WP would look like a brown mountain range.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While it might be permissible in theory, the case is poorer than it looks at first (both procedurally and on the merits), though the proposal isn't crazy:
    • We have circumstantial evidence that the subject prefers "CCH" (but no clear self-statement to this effect), and that "CCH" is more common (which is not the MoS standard; near-uniformity in RS is). It doesn't seem to be sufficient against the other factors.
    • This is perennial rehash, with no new argument, policy change, or evidence. Tendentiousness does not magically invalidate the existing, reaffirmed consensus. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS permits a consensus at an article to overrule a line-item in a style guideline (e.g., for WP:CONSISTENCY policy reasons). Opponents of the move argue the MOS:INITIALS criteria for a variance aren't really met, so it's not an overruling anyway.
    • The sources are not as consistent as proponents claim (see proof below). Her name is rendered various different ways. In seconds, on the very first page of search results, I see Jet magazine using "C.C.H." (in multiple issues), a book about movies doing it, and multiple major blogs doing it. RS clearly are following their own house style, and often just writer preference (varying in the same publication). Sources on actors are heavily concentrated in entertainment-industry news, which has WP:INDY problems on style (most of their funding is from industry advertising, so they do what the industry players want them to, stylistically, which amounts to a lot of copy-paste); this comes up a lot in MOS:TM discussions, too. For actors and such, they have an aggregate house style of mimicking whatever someone's agent, SAG card, movie credits, or other industry materials do, at the expense of consistency within their own publication (WP does the opposite.) It's a circular-reasoning feedback loop of "We at Movie Poop Chute print it as CCH because that's how it's done in us movie rags, and that's how it's done in them because we keep doing it" (same as the "capitalize this because its a proper name, and it's a proper name because we capitalized it" fallacy seen at so many other RMs).
    • It really is just initials for her full name. It's not a nickname like "CeeCee", or a weird stage name like "Talla 2XLC".
    • Whoever cited WP:OFFICIALNAME as a "support" rationale seems not to have actually read it: The officialness of a name has little bearing on what title we select here. We also have no idea who produces her website and other materials or what decision process is used by them (some celebs micromanage such materials, others just hand it off to someone and don't care much; the latter was the case with Utada Hikaru, whose name rendering varied by who was working on the content). Do Pounder's website and twitter agree because she insisted on it, or because a hireling imitated the style at one in the other? Any evidence?
    • The nominator's suggestion that WP:V policy is in some way implicated, and someone's later comment that WP's spelling is "not supported by reliable sources", are proven false, since the WP rendering is in fact attested in RS.
    • Some of the "precedents" cited are very different cases with better sourcing or, like kd lang, are WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments to avoid because they're actually unlikely to survive a re-discussion, due to MoS's deference to WP:CONSISTENCY policy having increased in the interim, along with stronger consensus both to avoid unusual stylization and to write more consistently in article prose. The next point has also become more widely understood among editors.
    • WP:COMMONAME is not applicable to this; it is not a style policy. It's the policy that tells us that her name is some version of "C. C. H./C.C.H/CCH Pounder" (from which we should choose one based on WP's own house-style rules) and that it's not "H. H. C. Pounder" or "C. C. H. McDougal", or "Jenny Chang".
    • The best pro argument would be MOS:INITIALS + WP:ABOUTSELF, except we have no evidence Pounder manages her own online content, nor a statement from her that she insists on this spelling, or even cares. By contrast, we do have that for T.J. Miller (not T.-space-J.). Find such proof for Pounder, and a future RM would be an open-and-shut case.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC); revised: 00:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as rehash with no new argument, name is still Carol Christine Hilaria Pounder this is style a straight case of initials, and on en.wp our MOS is dots after initials for every bio article. No stylism. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re that T.J. Miller remove of the space, rather than "precedent" seems to me to be a very bad example. We started with one stylism, Kathryn Dawn Lang, which was very visibly used on CD artwork as a stylism, but now we're having to increasingly scuttle around checking the MOS of each human being? This is silly. We're an encyclopedia, a bio is a bio. kd lang should be an outlier not the standard. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but in some exceptions, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY plays a factor to supersede all other guidelines. This move request and the "T.J. Miller" move seem like such cases. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. The only person on planet Earth familiar with "T.J. Miller" or "kd lang" (which needs to be re-RMed) who would not understand that "T. J. Miller" and "K. D. Lang" refer, respectively, to the same people is someone with severe brain damage. We have absolute proof of multiple spellings in numerous reliable sources. Unusual style demands based on assumed, unproven (OR) subject preference do not supersede writing consistently for our audience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm observing this discussion mostly because of an OTRS ticket - if Pounder were to post on her official Twitter (or other location) "yes, it really is CCH" would that suffice to show that the subject actually prefers it that way? From reading through the discussion it sounds like the only way the opposition will be satiated is if she states it herself in clear and plain language. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right. TJ Miller was moved because someone actually asked him on a video whether he cared about the styling, and he said that he did. I know not everyone cares about style, but as a publication that seeks to be reputable we should, like any other publication, stick to our own internal styles unless there's an explicit reason not to.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. This has come up various times with bands who have names or song/album names with unusual stylization and for which formal statements were made about it in RS. Same with Star Trek Into Darkness, and various other cases. It's quite possible Pounder would say "I tend to use CCH and I get credited that way because it's what my SAG card says" or "I insist on CCH, and really hate it when people add periods." We have no idea until she speaks, but until she does we have no reason to pursue an odd stylization just because entertainment publications often do it while others often do not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Our house style is to use full stops and spaces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except, it doesn't, per MOS:INITIALS which provides for this exact situation. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quote Pounder saying she cares how her name is presented typographically.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:INITIALS standard (and common sense) says {The person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name.} This is satisfied clearly: (copied from above) "CCH Pounder" version as her byline for an article she wrote (and her author page there), on her official site, on her official Twitter account, and on her official Instagram account. These all denote a "different, consistently preferred style". The 2nd criteria of MOS:INITIALS An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person (example: CC Sabathia) is also clearly satisfied if you do even a cursory examination of the sources. Together, these are absolutely overwhelming evidence of the need for this move. I'll also add that the fact that Wikipedia stands out as the only major information resource which is displaying this person's name wrong is embarrassing. Do people really think that in all these TV credits, movie credits, interviews, etc. that she would just "not care" how her name appears on-screen... that the fact that every one of them use "CCH" isn't due to a direct statement of her desire? Something is wrong with our processes if the uncontroversial and obvious structure of a person's name has to be debated this much. -- Netoholic @ 11:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
I've tried to address this in more detail, in a revision of my original comment. It's not that what you quote from INITIALS doesn't exist or could not apply, it's that a) the evidence isn't ironclad, and b) no new argument or type or level of evidence has been provided to overturn the last consensus discussion which also already went over all of this. "Wikipedia stands out as the only major information resource which is displaying this person's name [not as 'CCH']" is patently false. WP is a tertiary source that reflects doesn't determine usage, and various secondary ones (the kinds WP considers reliable) that interview and report directly on people like Pounder don't run the initials together like that. RS are not as anti-dot as you think they are, and those that are, are heavily concentrated in an industry addicted to mimicking marketing style quirks and they have a direct fiduciary incentive to do it. Avoiding WP mimicking them in turn was why MOS:TM was ever created in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

[edit]
  • Sources contradict claims of consistent use: As a demonstration that sources (even entertainment ones) don't consistently use "CCH" (even in the same publication), here are various non-self-published magazines, sites, newspapers, etc., all found in under 5 minutes (took way longer to format this):
    • General news:
      • Chicago Tribune [3]
      • UPI newswire [4] (has also used "CCH" [5])
      • The New York Times [6] (has also used "CCH" [7] and also made obvious editorial errors like "Cch" [8])
      • I didn't look much for these, and focused more topically.
    • Entertainment-industry publications:
      • People [9] (but has also used "CCH" [10])
      • Hollywood Reporter [11]
      • Vanity Fair [12]
      • Broadway World [13]
      • Cinefantastique [14]
      • Looper [15]
      • Digital Spy [16]
      • TV Overmind [17]
      • Internet Broadway Database [18]
      • Film Reference [19]
      • Live RampUp [20]
    • Black/urban-focused:
      • Black Enterprise [21]
      • Jet [22] (and has done so for a long time [23])
      • Vibe [24] (though it also used "CCH" in another article [25])
      • Essence [26] (but has also used CCH [27])
      • AllBlackMedia [28]
      • Electronic Urban Report (EURweb) [29] (uses both "C. C. H." and "CCH" in same article)
      • Blavity [30]
      • BlackAmericaWeb [31]
    • Books:
      • The Best Plays of 1983–1984 (and others in the series; ed. Otis L. Guernsey; Dodd, Mead & Co., 1989+) [32]
      • Navigating the Shadow World (Liv Spencer, ECW Press, 2013) [33]
      • Emotions (Timmothy B. McCann, Kensington Books, 2003) [34]
    • Misc.:
      • GoodReads [35]
      • Amazon [36] (as an author and audio-book narrator/voice actor; as a credited film/TV actor, usually "CCH", because Amazon's copy-pasting pre-packaged credits info; for books, they're writing their own key product metadata).
      • BrainyQuote [37]
PS: You also have to account for the fact that some North American and most British/Commonwealth journalism drops all dots from all initials, which skews raw search results tremendously. If someone wanted to do a statistical analysis, they'd have to first determine what percentage of sources (that commonly have stories about actors) in general do it, then subtract that percentage from the results for Pounder. But we can already see that the usage of "CCH" isn't consistent even without bothering with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR; inconsistent sources are inconsistent. Why are you so vehement about digging through all these while not addressing the clear preference for stylization that this person expresses via their own writing, social media, and TV/film credits? Are you aware that film credits require an explicit sign-off from the listed parties (or their representatives), for the express purpose of correcting any typographical errors, before it can be made final and released to the public? If these sources are inconsistent (some use "CCH", others "C.C.H. " and rarely "C. C. H. "), it points us even more toward the preference expressed by the person themselves. Just because other sources have poor or inconsistent handling of her name, doesn't mean Wikipedia has license to continue getting it wrong either. -- Netoholic @ 04:11, 24 February 2018 (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.

How is your name pronounced please

[edit]

How is your name pronounced please 174.215.177.199 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CCH_Pounder&oldid=1258176747"