Talk:Brian Morrison

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

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Brian Morrison is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Proposed move

This article should be renamed Brian Morrison per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) unless there is good reason otherwise. While Father Damien can probably get away with having his title in his article name, I would suggest that Father Brian is a little more like Father Bob. Comments? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose I considered and rejected this I didnt even bother with a redirect from Brian Morrison because the name isnt recognised in association with him, he is commonly known simply as Father Brian even Father Brian Morrison is stretching some readers all sources and references refer to him with the title. Father Brain is not only the person but also Father Brian's Crisis Care the two are inseperable as subjects, if a move is being considered then Father Brain's Crisis Care is more appropriate than Brian Morrison. Gnan garra 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose I concur with the arguements by Gnangarra in assisting with the draft of this article all the references used, particularly the press and the general community all refer to him as Father Brian, it was the name everyone colloquially knew him by - it makes no sense to call the article by any other name. Dan arndt (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. The first plank of the cited policy says "1. The name that is most generally recognisable". –Moondyne 04:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The opposers seem to be hanging their hat on "The name that is most generally recognisable" without looking at the following modifying clause that says specifically "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation." Reaching back to my Catholic schooldays I recall calling all priests "Father (first name)" but I would never dream of having all articles on Catholic priests in Australia named this way. "Father Bob" is a nickname or shorthand and no one would ever consider that his actual name is "Father Bob".

It seems quite obvious to be that the rules about "no titles" outweighs the rules about "most common name" or else we would have articles called "Queen Elizabeth II" and "Pope John Paul" and "Mahatma Gandhi", but of course we don't. Yes I am aware of "Mother Teresa" but I do not think that is a valid precedent in this case. A better precedent is the one I mentioned above. Here in the south-eastern corner of our nation, we have a reasonably well known Catholic priest known to all and sundry as "Father Bob". However, his actual name is Bob Maguire (actually Robert, but Bob is the common shorthand) and indeed that is the name of his article, as it should be. In any case, the existing name is not the most common name used. The surname is not part of the "common" name and the name as it stands is invalid

I do feel reasonably strongly about the "no titles" rule for naming articles. It is an important part of retaining a neutral point of view and I don't believe that Wikipedia should recognise any titles for this reason. Relax it here and surely the same argument can be used to rename Joh Bjelke-Petersen to the common Sir Joh. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline modifying clause does say 'preferably' and in this case I still think the current naming is appropriate. Brian Morrison would have little meaning to most people. I can't comment on Bob Maguire but reckon having Gandhi at Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is silly and inconsistnet with the principle of using the most common name. Joh Bjelke-Petersen is a well-known common name. Naming conventions are great, but we need to be a little bit flexible, and the guideline and precedents allow for that. I see no danger of such application becoming open-slather. Your npov point is valid and hence, I don't feel particularly strongly about this and won't lose any sleep over either form being applied, as long as appropriate redirects are in place. –Moondyne 06:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brian Morrison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]