Talk:Frank Maloney (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Maloney (disambiguation) → Frank Maloney – the trans woman's name is Kellie; I strongly support that she shouldn't be the primary meaning of her male birth name. Georgia guy (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Georgia guy (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still the best known subject by her former name, no reason has actually been given for moving beyond "I strongly support" and "per nom". Timrollpickering (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you really think a trans woman's male birth name is important in a way that means that we should allow links from it the same way we allow links from her name Kellie?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: she is still the primary topic for the name by which she was known while achieving notability. The article has been moved to reflect the answer to "What is the correct title for the article about this person?", but I think the redirect to her should stay because she is still the answer to the question "Who is the person someone is most likely to be looking for if they type the name Frank Maloney?". PamD 16:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, some people think her name still is Frank?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, her name is now Kellie, and that's the title of her article, but anyone following up from any information published before last week will be looking for someone called Frank. PamD 14:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, although we know she's a trans woman named Kellie, there are still some people who think her name is still Frank?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See below. PamD 14:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, the subject remains the primary topic following page move so redirect should stay as is; i.e. people looking for Frank Maloney are much more likely to want the article titled Kellie Maloney rather than the alternatives. 194.176.105.151 (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the question I asked just above your post. Georgia guy (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week, people who follow the news will be aware that the former Frank Maloney is now Kellie Maloney. But when the change is not in the news any more, someone will look at an old book or newspaper article, or a website like the first source in the article and see a "Frank Maloney" and look them up in Wikipedia. Maloney's notability is from their career in boxing, which is in the past. Readers will be better served if the most accessible of the three meanings of "Frank Maloney" continues to be the boxing promoter, even though that primary topic will redirect to the article under the new name. No need to move the disambiguation page. PamD 14:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, kind of like Frank still is one of her names?? (This means that instead of "Kellie Malonie, formerly Frank Malonie..." the heading of the article can go "Kellie Malonie, aka Frank Malonie".) Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing the matter with "Formerly". It's more informative, for the reader who has arrived at the article because they're reading about 1990s boxing or UKIP politics and want to find out about the person they've seen referred to as "Frank Maloney". PamD 15:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if this dis-ambiguation page is moved, it won't affect whether this page has a link to the trans woman. Georgia guy (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the boxing promoter is the Primary Topic for "Frank Maloney", so anyone typing that name, or following an out-of-date link, gets right to her page. If the dab page is moved to "Frank Maloney", as you request, anyone typing that name or following an out-of-date link lands on the dab page, from where they have to select her entry. It's just putting an unnecessary inconvenience in their path: the idea of "Primary topic" is that if far the majority of people using a search term are looking for one particular article (whether or not it's got that name), then we should make life easier for them by leading them direct to the article, with a hatnote to the dab page for readers wanting other articles. I don't see why you want to move the page. PamD 15:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having the trans woman Kellie Maloney being the primary meaning of Frank Maloney suggests that Frank is (not was) one of her names. She's a trans woman, and we must treat a trans woman like her name is unambiguously her adopted name (in this case Kellie Maloney.) Can you read Wikipedia:Gender identity?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed the subject headings in that essay, but nothing seems relevant to the question of how we help Wikipedia readers to find the article they want. By your logic, what would we do if there were no other people known by the name of "Frank Maloney"? Would you say that there shouldn't be a redirect from that name to this article? Leaving the dab page where it is just helps more readers. Plenty of people and organisations have links or redirects from previous names - Victoria Coren, Jackie Kennedy, Trinity and All Saints College. PamD 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 examples that are people are just pre-marriage names of married women. The example here is the male birth name of a trans woman, which Wikipedia should generally limit to situations where it is appropriate. Go to this question and its answer:

(from Wikipedia:Gender identity)

What about other people who change their name, where we stay with the most common name?

A name change that accompanies coming out as transgender has some unique considerations, since it is often not possible to use the previous name without misgendering the individual, which causes the WP:BLP-related harm discussed above.

What's wrong here?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we use the new name for the article, no problem, just as mandated by the essay. But questions of "What is the primary topic for the character string Frank Maloney" are nothing to do with these unique considerations, only to do with how we help readers to find the article. You didn't answer my question: if there were no other Franks Maloney in the encyclopedia, would you say there shouldn't be any way to get from that name to this article? PamD 16:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would have said that that name can be kept as a re-direct per the fact that a dis-ambiguation page must have at least 2 uses. But I would still support that links to the article must go to Kellie Maloney (unless there's a real reason for them not to do so) as part of respecting transgender people. Georgia guy (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and WP:COMMONNAME. Having Frank Maloney redirect to Kellie Maloney does not mean she still has that name or that she should be known by that name. It just means that people often search that name when they are really looking for Kellie Maloney. When names change it is common for redirect pages using the former name to be made whether it be name changes by marriage (e.g., ~~Shirley Temple~~ whoops had that backwards) or identity (e.g., Bradley Manning). This does not violate WP:Gender identity as the actual article abides by it. Redirects are basically there to correct user error. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any Wikipedia article you can use as an analogy?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure what you are asking. I did show a version of WP:OTHERSTUFF; Bradley Manning redirects to Chelsea Manning and Andrej Pejić redirects to Andreja Pejić. Both are cases of transpeople changing their names. Normally WP:COMMONNAME would dictate that we keep the old article name, but WP:IDENTITY overrides it in the case of transpeople. Again, the redirect is only for the users' sake. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's as clear as a sunny day that there's one difference between the examples you give and this example. In your examples, there's no Bradley Manning (disambiguation) page. Thus, I would support a keep of the re-direct, but that we should try to make sure that all links go to Chelsea Manning unless there's a reason reason for them not to. Georgia guy (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I see what you mean. You want Frank Maloney to redirect to the disambig page, right? I guess I'd be okay with that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:28, 13 August 2014 (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.