Jump to content

Talk:John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Cain II?

[edit]

Why on Earth is John Cain [junior] given the title "John Cain II"? He has never been known by this title, which is not Australian usage. (I live in the State of Victoria where John Cain was Premier.) Melba1 (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here to make exactly the same point.
John Cain tells me we have at least 5 articles on similarly named men, three of whom are/were Americans. Given this, tags like "senior" or "II" for the Australian Cains won't do. In my opinion:
Parliament of Victoria uses "Cain, John (junior)". http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/re-member/bioregfull.cfm?mid=941. For the moment, I've moved the page to "John Cain (Junior)". It should really be at "John Cain (junior)", but there's an existing link there with some history, so it is going to take an admin to make that move. I don't think we need to include premier in the page name, because all of the other "John Cain"s are "Johnny Cane" or "John P Cane" or whatever - none of them are 'junior' or 'senior'. Ben Aveling 10:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC) PS. Request now pending: Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Technical_requests[reply]

Further to this discussion and following three recent edits by User:Whyne 02 to add "Jr." following Cain's name in the lede and in the infobox. Like most Australians who share a parent's name, Cain does not style himself John Cain Junior. Thus "The Honourable john Cain Jr." is simply wrong as the form of address for a living person. The bracketed (junior) in the page title is appropriate to distinguish from his father - but that's all. In fact I cannot find any source that does not follow this convention. Nickm57 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the edits by former user User:Whyne 02, a series of "anon IP" addresses now do the same, in addition to attempting to delete this discussion, always without comment Nickm57 (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Cain is known mostly in the media as simply "John Cain", and he is by far more notable than anybody else known as John Cain, including his father. The real question would be about the title for the article about his father. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, neither of the Thomas Playford premiers of South Australia were known by senior, junior or any other suffix either. The articles are Thomas Playford II and Thomas Playford IV (there are not articles for numbers I or III). The latter article includes Playford was the fifth Thomas Playford and the fourth to have lived in South Australia. The problem with "junior" in any form is what to do with the next one. Since this article says that John's son John Cain has been appointed to a senior position, it is plausible that he will achieve Wikinotablity at some stage, and at least one article calls him "John Cain Jr."[1]. Footballer disambiguation seems to be by birth year if they played for/in the same country. I suggest either John Cain I and John Cain II (with John Cain III as a possible future article for the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) or John Cain (born 1882) and John Cain (born 1931) which makes it easy to name the next generation when needed. Clearly ", senior" and ", junior" or "Sr" and "Jr" are not consistent with the sources. --Scott Davis Talk 11:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Cain (junior). 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) 09:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 January 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 section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move this page, but no consensus on what title to which it should be moved, as found in the earlier close by Paine Ellsworth. Therefore, under WP:THREEOUTCOMES and again in accordance with the previous close, moving this page to John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria) and John Cain (senior) to John Cain (34th Premier of Victoria) at this time. The disambiguation page is not moved at this time. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, a new move request may be initiated for the premiers; the most likely targets would be John Cain (politician, born 1882) and John Cain (politician, born 1931), but please consider whether those titles would be able to gain consensus over the new titles before initiating a new request. Dekimasuよ! 19:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– By far the most notable person with the name "John Cain" and is not known as "junior", "II", etc. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Reopened 00:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC) – previous close:

"John Cain (junior)" moved to John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria), "John Cain (senior)" moved to John Cain (34th Premier of Victoria), dab page not moved. Per the linked guide, "...while consensus has rejected the former title(s) (and no request to bring (them) back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title(s) actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice(s), they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to (their) final resting place(s)." Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  14:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved from technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but the other John Cains are far less notable than this John Cain who doesn't need a disambiguator. John Cain's son is known as "John Cain Jr.", the grandson of the elder John Cain, so it's not appropriate that this John Cain is known as junior. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At more than half the page views, this John Cain premier is clearly the primary topic. That would be higher if this was at "John Cain". "Johnny Cain" is not a John Cain, so if we only had one John Cain and one Johnny Cain, neither of those would need a disambiguation term. Over the last year this John Cain had 13,000 of the 20,000 views for all John Cains, or out of 23,500 for John Cains including Johnny Cain. After all, this is a historically recent and long serving state premier. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the combined views being more than half, it is primary topic. Changing my !vote to support (same contributor, different IP) 89.147.70.233 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, neither of these John Cains were known as senior or junior. The only John Cain to be known as junior is the grandson of the first John Cain and son of the second (and more notable) John Cain, and is not the subject of a Wikipedia article. The main problem with using birth year is that he is not particularly associated with the year of his birth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Bob Katter has been known as Bob Katter Jr., but his name is fortunately different to his father Robert Katter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about John Cain (premier, I) and John Cain (premier, II)? This (a) avoids long-winded dabs, (b) distinguishes from any American politicians who would never be called "premier", (c) avoids the inappropriate Senior/Junior tags, (d) avoids having to put in years of birth, and (e) is closest to how Aussie/Victorian people would actually refer to them.
  • Btw, there is almost a similar problem with Richard Butler (Australian politician) and Richard Layton Butler, father and son premiers of South Australia. The younger had a middle name, which proved useful, but he was also an "Australian politician", and one who served longer than his Dad. I'm not convinced the current solution is optimal. My suggestion for the Cains would also work for the Butlers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are stuck in this mindset that what must be done to the father must be done to the son. Victorians refer to the John Cain of the 1980s as John Cain≈, because very few people know of any other John Cain. The 1950s premier would be called something like "the older John Cain", or something hard to put into a title. John Cain and John Cain (older premier)? Most importantly we do not need symmetry between the titles of the first John Cain and the second John Cain. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Onetwothreeip. I don't understand the urge to default to very long-winded disambiguation when John Cain (senior) is often referred to as John Cain Sr" by actual sources dealing with this problem - there are certainly no reliable sources distinguishing from his son by "John Cain Australian politician born 1882". I would strongly suggest leaving Richard Layton Butler alone as well if we're going to go there, and renaming the father only (which, unlike in this case, actually makes no sense at all, because Richard Layton Butler was also an Australian politician). The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to John Cain. He only gets 53% of the pageviews, and that is nowhere near to define a WP:PTOPIC. "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Ill-chosen PTOPICs are guaranteed ways to accumulate bad links which are unlikely to be found and fixed - especially when, as here, two people have had the identical occupation. They also annoy readers who were looking for someone else.
I would support moves to John Cain (politician, born 1882) and John Cain (politician, born 1931). That is the standard form of disambiguator in cases like this. There is no need to specify the country, because no other politicians were born in those years. Narky Blert (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Over the last year it's 65% of the total page views for all John Cains. Johnny Cain is rightfully not considered a John Cain here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: 65% is at least 25% short of the number I consider the minimum to define a PTOPIC. The hidden damage to the encyclopaedia caused by bad links to ill-chosen PTOPICs is unknowable. Narky Blert (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're making up your own definition and criteria for primary topic, contrary to community consensus as reflected at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 01:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The relevant criteria is, "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought". When one topic gets more than half the page views, and no other topic gets near that many, it clearly qualifies. --В²C ☎ 01:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reading both articles, looking at sources and searching through the Victorian BDM registery. Firstly John Cain(1882) needs some more clarity and better sourcing on his name. BDM has no John Cain or Kane for 1882 though it has a CaneADB spelling in 1882 father unknown... If we can clarify his former surname and when it was changed that would be the ideal dab John Cain(Kane), then John Cain and John Cain Jnr would fit the sequence... At the moment the name change is uncited with Kane in the info box and no explanation in the article... Gnangarra 10:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think John Cain (Snr) has a birth certificate spelling the surname Caine. I tend to the view that these variations in spelling of surname are due to widespread C19th illiteracy or human transcription errors. Anyway I don't know of a reliable source that clarifies this matter and therefore Im not sure it helps us here. Nickm57 (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the strangest suggestions yet: John Cain (senior) is frequently referred to as "John Cain Sr", but his son is not referred to as "John Cain Jr" outside of Wikipedia. Reversing them makes no sense whatsoever - and as someone universally known as "John Cain", what his birth certificate says is completely irrelevant to our purposes. No reliable source refers to him as "John Cain(Kane)". The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what sources say including birth certificate is very much relevant dab options, which are for our benefit if its known then a persons full name is used, if 34th/41st premier of victoria is too long, then MLA Northcote, MLA Bundora. As 34th/41st premier of victoria are their most significant achievements and the reason why people would be looking for them then that is a significantly better DAB than snr, jnr, II, or I. John Cane should be the DAB page as thats the best way to help clarify for readers who they are looking for. Gnangarra 03:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion works for me too. Nickm57 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me too, but I'd make it John Cain (1882-1957) and John Cain (born 1931). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we never usually use this form of disambiguation. We pretty much always use "Name (occupation, born xxxx)". We don't use date ranges or dates without an occupation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated following discussion, my preference is now for John Cain (Australian politician, born 1931) and John Cain (Australian politician, born 1882). --Scott Davis Talk 22:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a note about this discussion on talk:John Cain (senior)#Page move proposed --Scott Davis Talk 06:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

  • As it stands, there are too many options on the table for a clear consensus to have formed around one. Personally, I think Ben Aveling's proposal for John Cain (34th Premier of Victoria) and John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria) is best. bd2412 T 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we must go to longer-form disambiguation, I would much prefer this suggestion over the others, as it's the clearest - someone looking for John Cain Sr is unlikely to have any clear idea who any take on "John Cain (born 1882)" refers to without further clarification, but these names leave for no doubt. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we should go a long form disambiguation at all. John Cain alone as the title for this article is the most favoured, with the current John Cain (junior) title being completely unsupported. By that matter, the article should be moved to John Cain at least for now, and the discussion does not have to end. I repeat that this person is simply not known as "junior", and we do not need to have symmetrical disambiguations for the father and the son! Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you (obviously), but 4(5 if the IP counts) in favour - 7 against/arguing for other names doesn't get us even close to a consensus to move, and this has been open for a while now and I don't think it's reasonable to expect that to drastically swing. Time to start trying to move this towards something that can get a consensus, and BD2412 seems like the least unwieldy disambiguation we're going to get. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything other than John Cain would get a consensus either, as in a majority of participants, and possibly John Cain might also not be able to get a consensus too. Of the seven participants who did not support the original proposal, I don't think all of them are against the proposal but rather that they prefer their own. I don't think John Cain (Xth premier) will get a consensus, but that's not up to me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're right, then we're stuck with John Cain (junior) and John Cain (senior) indefinitely. Even though my preferred option is the same as yours, I think that would be a poor outcome. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be forever. At some stage, the moderately senior public servant who is presently known as John Cain Junior might get another promotion to the point that he is worthy of his own Wikipedia article. It's highly unlikely we would stick that at "John Cain Junior the second" due to his father being John Cain Junior in Wikipedia-world. He's already the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions so might be getting close to needing to be disambiguated from his father. --Scott Davis Talk 11:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely something that is supported by a plurality of editors, John Cain, should be carried out when the current situation is supported by approximately nobody. Maybe someone should make an article about his son to really push this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 41st premier is definitely the primary topic of "John Cain" though. The problem here is that neither of these premiers are commonly known by those numbers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that suggestion as well. Anything but the currentNickm57 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have been talking for almost a month. There is very little support for the current names of the two articles, which also provide no scope for naming of a possible future article on the third generation. The leading options appear to be WP:PRIMARY for the second John Cain premier (with no consensus on any name for the article about his father), as the original proposal, or John Cain (Australian politician, born 1931) and John Cain (Australian politician, born 1882) which allows for future articles for others. I have updated my !vote above to this option to assist finding consensus. --Scott Davis Talk 22:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how that assists in finding consensus: the elongated date version has only as many supporters as the original proposal, and as many people strongly opposed to it. It seems pretty obvious, short of a sudden deluge of opinionated new people, that like the original proposal, it cannot find consensus. So why not respond to the consensus proposal, which has the same amount of support as either and only one person who's come out against it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a plan to bring this to a consensus, so I hope this is kept open for a bit more, but I am sure we are towards the end and I predict a change of the article title within a week. What it ends up being changed to is uncertain though. ScottDavis, would you support this article being moved to John Cain without disambiguation? I've tallied up all the names and this proposal is the closest to a consensus, but it's still not close to one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I initially planned on doing this at the editors' respective talk pages, but I don't want to be suspected of manipulating a discussion. Necrothesp and Scott Davis supported moving this article to John Cain (politician, born XXXX), BenAveling and BD2412 supported moving this article to John Cain (XXth Premier of Victoria). JackofOz and Gnangarra supported their own proposals. There is no consensus for any proposal, but would any of you support the proposal to move the article to John Cain without disambiguation? The main reason for which being that it has more than half the views for all John Cains, but this has been thoroughly discussed already. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no clarity about a middle name for disambiguation then John Cain (politician, born XXXX) is the better outcome. With John Cain being the disambiguation page. Gnangarra 23:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For now I'm just looking if people would support a move to John Cain without disambiguation, or not. The people I notified supported other measures but did not say they opposed John Cain. Otherwise we will be back where we were before, everyone going in their own direction. Overall there is no support for the status quo. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will not support moving it to "John Cain". I will accept that page name is (slightly) better than the current one so will accept and not block that move if it is otherwise supported. I would still prefer disambiguated pagenames so that it is easier to detect misdirected links. --Scott Davis Talk 02:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You accept it but not support it? If I was greedy I would take that as approving the proposal, but it sounds like more of an abstention. I think all the possible arguments have already been made, I just want to get people on the record to see if there's enough to proceed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's how consensus works. It's not my preferred choice, but I think it's better than the status quo, hence I consent to the original proposal in the absence of support for a better option. --Scott Davis Talk 03:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • just to be clear then I Oppose moving John Cain(jnr) to John Cain though give that issue are likely to arise in the future over John Cain(jnr), and are currently confused with two related people externally I support that John Cain(junior) be moved to more appropriate DAB..... Gnangarra 04:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that the more recent Premier John Cain was and is known as "John Cain" with no suffix, and the earlier Premier John Cain is often referred to as "John Cain senior". I'm not sure that one premier is more notable than the other, but the father John Cain has a natural and common disambiguator whereas his son does not. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2nd-relist break
[edit]
  • Comment. I reiterate, why are we not simply using John Cain (politician, born 1931) and John Cain (politician, born 1882), as we would do with pretty much every other disambiguated article? There is no precedent for a construction like John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria) . There is plenty of precedent for using a simple disambiguator with date of birth. And there seems to be reasonable support for it above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your proposed suggestion is the longest, most unwieldy and most unclear suggestion of all the articles. I'm an uber-nerd of this stuff and even I wouldn't know that John Cain was born in 1882, but most people looking for the article would know that he was Premier of Victoria. I certainly wouldn't have a clue from either date title without reading the article that I'm getting the article on the person I'm actually looking for. The present title - if we're not going to move the son to the primary topic (which had at least as much supported as bloated titling) - is the most effective way of disambiguating father from son. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is because we don't have to, when we could just call him John Cain since this article has more page views than all other John Cains combined. I know the premiers of Victoria reasonably well but I also wouldn't know he was the 41st. Currently more people support the original proposal than any other proposal, so we'll see if enough of those who haven't said they oppose will approve of the no disambiguation proposal over nothing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Necrothesp, BenAveling, BD2412, and JackofOz: Would you approve of this page moving to John Cain with no disambiguation? You indicated preference for a different proposal, but no proposal has a majority. The undisambiguated option is the closest to a majority. Thank you. Onetwothreeip Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 30 days, 1100 page views for this John Cain, 400 for his father. The other John Cains use their middle names or middle initials and have far fewer page views than either premier John Cain. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I Oppose moving to a primary topic. In terms of long-term significance, they both held an identical position so there's nothing to choose between them. The younger John may get more page views, but that's a case of WP:RECENTISM. I suggest we pick one of the two options for disambiguating the two and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify that the reason I didn't ping you and two others is because I've already noted that you oppose the no disambiguation option. I don't intend on drawing out the arguments any more, I just want to hear what the people who haven't said they oppose are leaning to and we can move on from there. As for recentism, his notability is purely within the 1980s, was premier for longer, and was more influential than his father. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this isn't a WP:RECENTISM case, but I just don't find the numbers convincing for a primary topic. bd2412 T 21:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as you oppose moving to no disambiguation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John Cain (1882–1957) & John Cain (born 1931) are acceptable (5/10), but score way lower in terms of recognisability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John Cain (politician, 1882-1957) & John Cain (politician, born 1931) are also acceptable. 7/10. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you oppose John Cain without disambiguation then? As it stands the most popular proposal is without disambiguation but short of a majority, so we're seeing if that can get a majority when it's either yes or no to that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"With John Cain highly ambiguous". Definitely oppose John Cain without disambiguation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John Cain should take you to the disambiguation page that should be titled John Cain (disambiguation). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the original proposal. I thought that was long since dead in the water. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the arguments and counter-arguments have been made well. It's currently 7 in favour and 6 explicitly against, with 3 participants who supported other proposals yet to say if they are for or against. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unless there is a drastic change, the proposal to move this article to John Cain won't pass. I would like to propose a solution that is both short and something that people would know, John Cain (1980s premier) and John Cain (1950s premier). Using their birth date or whether they were the 30th premier is not optimal since readers are not going to already know that information until afterwards, but if they know anything about these two people they would know that one was premier in the 50s and one was premier in the 80s. This way we don't need to use three or more words to disambiguate between them, and it's far less arbitrary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose colloquial disambiguations such as "1980s premier". Also, what is premier? Not good enough, this is ambiguous. Either "politician" or "Premier of Victoria", not just "premier".
Please let this RM close, and then spend more time thinking about it before launching a fresh proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any other John Cains who were premiers or anything similar to premier, so it's not ambiguous to anybody who would come across these John Cains. A person being "premier" is almost exclusively known to be the state head of government in Australia. John Cain (1980s Premier of Victoria) would be the next best option. Why is it that my proposal which you disagree with be the one to prompt this discussion to close? Several people have proposed separate disambiguations, why can't I? We can't close the discussion yet, there is unanimous agreement that the title should be changed, it's simply a matter of to what. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been clearer what was going on if, instead of requesting the closer to revert the close and move, you had simply initiated a new RM proposal from the "interim" page name, with both "(junior)" and "" (no disambiguation) off the table as options. Remember that we are not just looking for a majority vote. As it is, we are just going round the same mulberry bush again, hoping to find something different on the other side. --Scott Davis Talk 05:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(junior) is definitely off the table, no disambiguation is on the edge of the table with not much chance at being back on the table unless a few people appear and support it. There is a scattering of disambiguation options, and I am adding my one being (1980s premier), or some variation of that such as (1980s Premier of Victoria). I'll wait for comment on my proposal, on other people's proposals, and even any new proposals, and from there move to see what's the proposal that can easiest get a majority. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SmokeyJoe about "premier" (lowercase) - either "politician" or "Premier of Victoria", with a preference for "Premier of Victoria" because the birthdate versions are the worst possible outcome. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As in John Cain (1980s politician)? Because I think that's even better. As long as it's not birthdate or Xth Premier. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "1980s" and "1950s" ones are both plain inaccurate: two of Cain Sr's three governments were not even in the 1950s, and Cain Jr was elected in the 1970s and retired in the 1990s. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's more suited to "1980s premier" but it's still when they were most notable as politicians. The older John Cain's last government was by far more notable than the other two. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone in this thread yet provided a deliberate link to the relevant Wikipedia guidelines? I tried to follow it, but by induction from looking at other page titles, rather than by starting from the guideline. Now I've found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), in particular the section "Disambiguating" at WP:NCPDAB seems to have a bunch of progressively more complex guidance. I think by the fourth or fifth rule, we get to John Cain (politician, born YYYY) with the example being poker players named David Baker, similar to my footballers example. We could have stopped sooner if they weren't both Labor premiers of Victoria (using their party or state). --Scott Davis Talk 09:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have no need to get to the fourth or fifth rule because the second rule does a better job of it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really no support for any use of 1980s in the title? I think this does the job of distinguishing between the two, but also is something that people would know, unlike birth year or which number premier they were. Most of all I think we should avoid anything to do with "born YEAR", it's completely unnecessary and unnatural. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No support from me. His term as premier continued till the latter part of 1990, so ...
If you go to John Cain, you see the first 2 people listed as follows:
  • John Cain (senior) (1882–1957), 34th Premier of Victoria, Australia
  • John Cain (junior) (born 1931), 41st Premier of Victoria, Australia.
The wording "xxth Premier of Victoria" seems perfectly fine for people wanting to find the right subject. Let us use that for our disambiguation tags. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to end the initial proposal and move to 34th and 41st Premier of Victoria. The discussion can continue afterwards if there are people who want it to be given another title. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:06, 13 February 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.

John Cain names

[edit]

I'd just like to note here, given the years-long saga of referring to the two premiers both named John Cain. It appears that the son of the recently deceased John Cain goes by "John Cain" as well, and not John Cain Jr as some of us (myself included) thought he may. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 December 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: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– Disambiguators are written in wiki-voice and use sentence case. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, "premier" should be de-capped because it is "Modified ... denoting an office". JOBTITLES gives the relevant example "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States." Note "president" is de-capped. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that's a view based on recentism. For much of his active time in politics he was publicly known as John Cain Junior. There were many people around who recalled his father's time in politics, and saw that as pretty significant, and if you look at what his father achieved, that's a valid view. I'd be interested to know when you think John Cain the Younger became more notable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was by far the most notable John Cain before his death as well. By the time he was premier he certainly was not known as "John Cain Junior" or "John Cain the Younger", with the thirty years between their premierships being far more than between the two American presidents named George Bush. The political career of the older John Cain was nowhere near as significant as that of the younger John Cain, which was really just a few years of a turbulent government, and who is almost always described as the older or senior John Cain whenever he is mentioned. We have ample evidence of page views and search engine data to support that the recently deceased John Cain is more notable, even before his death. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would still argue that's a recentism argument. Of course people in more recent years have talked more about the more recent John Cain. That's human nature. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point of WP:RECENTISM is that circumstances will change to make that redundant. The younger John Cain will always be a more recent premier than his father, but he is also considered more notable regardless of that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that it should be capitalized in the title and de-capped in prose directly contradicts WP:TITLEFORMAT. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm describing how these terms are spelled commonly. "Premier of Victoria" is a proper noun, while "premier" is a common noun, who may happen to the premier of Victoria. The way we have decided to disambiguate these premiers is to use their titles rather than their occupations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it was only "(Premier of Victoria)" that would be true. But JOBTITLES is unambiguous about this. The phrase "41st premier of Victoria" should be de-capped per our MOS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If our MOS is telling people to change titles to language that is grammatically incorrect and contradicted by 100% of sources, then it simply needs to be changed. This is ridiculous. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Drover's Wife, there is nothing "grammatically incorrect" about "41st premier of Victoria". It is a stylistic choice, and the reason we have a Manual of Style is so we can have a consistent style across the entire encyclopedia. Right now, there is inconsistency everywhere. You are welcome to suggest a change to your preferred style at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're treating proper nouns as common nouns, which is why your attempted usage contradicts all usage in reliable sources. That's grammatically incorrect: if it wasn't, someone else would have used it at some point in history. WP:JOBTITLES doesn't actually state that all offices should be decapitalised across the board, but its unclear language opens itself to the possibility that it might be interpreted in absurd ways and try to establish its own entirely unique take on English grammar re: proper nouns, so it clearly needs clarification. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:JOBTITLES: Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns... Clearly, premier belongs in this group. When modified by "41st", it meets the conditions described in the examples to be de-capped. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not necessarily common nouns, as WP:JOBTITLES makes clear when it explicitly tells you you can't change "President Trump" to "president Trump". In actual usage, they are frequently proper nouns: WP:JOBTITLES references this in the most opaque way possible when it says "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description". This is, in a tortured way, explaining to people like you why every single source acknowledges that this term is a proper noun in this context. There is inconsistency across the encyclopedia because common nouns and proper nouns are treated differently in English grammar: trying to establish consistency across the two either suggests that the person trying to do it is either not a native English speaker or has some extremely unique and creative ideas about the future of English grammar. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
is not preceded by a modifier --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"41st" is not a modifier. You can see that literally every source in existence treats this as a proper noun. This is just getting bizarre: I've never seen an instance on Wikipedia before where someone has decided that actual English grammar in all reliable source usage is wrong and decides that Wikipedia should use their own unique interpretation instead. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"41st" is not a modifier is just simply false. I wish we could get more opinions. Would you be O.K. with placing a notice at WT:AT and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Because your interpretation of this guideline contradicts everything I have been told from other editors. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That we now have "every source on the internet and the Cambridge Australian English style guide" versus "Wikipedia user Coffeeandcrumbs" is really clarifying the need to sort out WP:JOBTITLES once and for all so no one can ever mangle things this badly again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is getting a little nasty. Please assume good faith. It has been made abundantly clear to me that the argument I am making here is the accepted consensus at WP:JOBTITLES. Please don't attack me for following a clearly written guideline. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These edits do not follow a clearly written guideline, and the extremely passionate opinions on that talk page of largely one user (Eyer) with opinions about English grammar that are fundamentally not backed up by any reliable sources either in common usage or in authoritative style guides is not "accepted consensus" by any means. They're indefensible by any argument based in sources or usage in any sense and there's a reason that any argument has to fall back in on what two or three users slipped into the guideline. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that JOBTITLES is CONSENSUS. The writing quality is an odd measure of consensus. That writing quality would be determined by the same MOS aficionados who are all over the many MOS pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, Gnangarra, Onetwothreeip, and Timrollpickering: Perhaps some of you might want to pop by the MOS talk page Coffeeandcrumbs linked before - this situation is completely absurd and it's only happened because no more than five users with extremely strong opinions with no basis in sources have basically grabbed hold of this section of the MOS. We need a few people to speak up so this nonsense stops. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It’s so exhausting to argue with them in one of theIf MOS subcaves. Google ngram s doesn’t support their lede example [2]. I think they collectively are hypercorrectors, revisionist, and honestly believe that an external style guide is a source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its laughable if they werent so serious, WP:ENGVAR says use source usage and local styles, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_people specifically states Directly juxtaposed with the person's name, such words begin with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama), contrary to WP:JOBTITLE and in any DAB its directly juxtaposed with the persons name. With all of this based solely on the US President/president it could only be applied to that position not until such time as there is an agreed linguistic change published by a reliable source for each english variant. Wikipeida is not to the cause of change WP:OR, its the reporter after the fact is reliably sourced WP:RS. Gnangarra 07:15, 30 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Cain_(41st_Premier_of_Victoria)&oldid=1206507946"