Talk:McG/Archives/2015

Naming

Since "McG" is the guy's stage name, not his actual name, should this information maybe be contained in an article entitled "Joseph McGinty Nichol," with the "McG" entry redirecting to that? Mattymatt 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed, but someone keeps switching it back apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.170.90 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I switched it around. McG now redirects to Joseph McGinty Nichol. Nevar1982 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree and I've now moved "McG" to "Joseph McGinty Nichol". Hopefully no one will change it. Malick78 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, most if not all articles that link to "McG" ought to be corrected to refer to the subject by this name. He's involved in a number of film projects (e.g., Terminator Salvation), and in those he is referred to exclusively as "McG". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently this article violates WP:COMMONNAME, and will require an administrator to move it. Elton John's article is not named Reginald Kenneth Dwight, neither should this article refer to some full name no one, not even his family use. Alientraveller (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No one uses his full name because the assclown doesn't tell it to anyone. He is so full of himself that he goes by it. Maybe head-up-the-ass should redirect to his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk • contribs)

That's an interesting "opinion". It should have been left McG just like the Madonna, Prince, etc articles as that is the common name. Just like Alientraveller mentioned. Mefanch (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I reckon you should have deleted that, but glad to see some consensus regarding common names. Alientraveller (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the "opinion" that the "McG" moniker isn't noteworthy enough to be used as the parent wiki entry. Surely we aren't under some delusion that Mr. McGinty is as famous or as achieved as Madonna, Prince, or Elton John... are we? At some point, the decision to name an article becomes a subjective decision. This being an encyclopedia and all, it would seem proper to use objective means for all parent wikis. Why should it be that some people are "worthy" enough to have their stage name utilized, while others are not? Since aliases can be easily made to redirect, a person's various pseudonyms can point to the parent wiki. It all seems "clique-ish" as to who decides what the parent wiki will be titled, as well as who is "worthy" to have their stage name chosen. Perhaps in the "Simple English" entry, the "common name" should indeed be used instead of the actual person's name. But for us "non-simple" people, why should "our" wiki be "dumbed down" to mainstream levels? 24.247.170.144 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also agree the "McG" should not exists as an entry rather his full name should be used. The Elton John and Madonna examples could be cited as exceptions since both have teh benefit of being in use for decades, and both do not result in new case-sensitive words added to the English language. If it were something like 'McGinty' then I'd be okay with it, but 'McG' by itself doesn't fit. --nycmstar (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from WP:COMMONNAME that this article is properly named "McG", regardless of what you think of the man's choice of name, it's what he's most commonly known by, what he's credited as in his work, and as such seems to clearly fit within the definitions provided by the COMMONNAME rules: "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article" and "Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." This is why "Bill Clinton" is acceptable over "William Jefferson Clinton" and "Pele" is acceptable over "Edson Arantes do Nascimento". I may not particularly like the name, or the attitude, but it is what it is. Snarky Boy (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nycmstar: "and both do not result in new case-sensitive words added to the English language. If it were something like 'McGinty' then I'd be okay with it, but 'McG' by itself doesn't fit.". It is WP:COMMONNAME that should be updated. Also, it may be alleged that McG may not fulfill the criteria of a 'name', as it's rather an abbreviation.

Yes, definitely...not "opinion" from what I can tell this "assclown" has done absolutely nothing of artistic value and indeed does not earn any right to decide his own name. If the guy's name is assclown McGinty then surely we can define him as such. McG is incredibly pretentious, whether it be a family name or not, and is surely not deserved of someone who's most credited work is the remake "Charlie's Angels" movie...perhaps we can all decide upon some new categories system in which all people can state that they have whatever name they please, but until then, Joseph McGinty Nichol should be the only thing you can find this guy under...no links from "McG"...sounds like a damn hamburger for christ sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.44.117 (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think many people know him under the name McG. Richard Symonds' nickname was apparently 'Dickie', but he's not very well-known, so we give him his normal name. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact that he's always credited in his work as "McG", covered extensively in the media as "McG", and is in relevant media unknown as "Joseph McGinty Nichol", you'd be right. WP:COMMONNAME seems pretty clear on this topic, to me. Snarky Boy (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just put,'Joseph McGinty Nichol AKA McG'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.73.1 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)