Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (pseudonyms)

Wouldn't it be more respectful to have the redirect from Linda Lovelace to Linda Boreman, and not the other way around. Given her stance on pornography later in life, I believe the entry should be on her real name, not a name that was somehow forced on her, even if that is the name she is best known under. I don't feel like reversing a decision by maveric149, since he probably has his reasons.

Seindal, Wednesday, April 24, 2002

---

On this one I would have to vote with Seindal -- a redirect would take care of your issue Lee, but both out of respect (which I think is important) but also out of accuracy (which is more important, for Wikipedia) we should use Boreman -- it was her legal name. We have done similar things such as various links for the Queen Mother going to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. I'll give it a few hours to see if this attracts any more comments, then edit boldly . . . ClaudeMuncey, Thursday, April 25, 2002

I agree. Make Linda Boreman the name of the article, and Linda Lovelace the redirect. It's not like there are other famous Linda Boremans that could be confused with her, and the precedent is a good one. The Anome

Agree with Claude and Anome. In general I prefer having the base article be the 'real name' with the redirects being the more popular ones (obviously this isn't done consistently - Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens for instance). I don't see the point about ad hoc redirects. If there's a Linda Lovelace page that redirects to Linda Boreman, it won't really matter which name is used in a redirect. Rgamble

---

This is something which has already been discussed a great deal in other places. The previous consensus on naming conventions was to always use the most widely used name for something unless that raises a ambiguity issue. And if there is an ambiguity issue then either the most famous example gets the most common name or a disambiguation page is created.

If the line of reasoning of the bandwagon here is followed, then we should rename Mark Twain to Sammual Clemmens, Soviet Union to Union of Soviet Socialists Republics, Paris to Paris, France, Anton van Leeuwenhoek to Anonti van Leeuwenhoek (the Dutch, and therefore the most "correct" spelling), Marilyn Monroe to Norma Jean Baker, and ditto for all hollywood actors with screen names that are different than their legal names. Not to mention the thousands of articles that are already named with the most common shortened version of people's names -- should we also include everyone's middle, second, third and sometimes fourth names? Where should we stop? Do we want to venture on this slippery slope? To do so would be madness!

We should always name articles based upon what Larry called the "suprise factor" -- Always title things in a way that will lead to the least amount of suprise for the average visitor to the site (who isn't going to know the Dutch spelling of Leeuwenhoek, will find it odd if the most famous Paris in the world is in an article named Paris, France, and also isn't going to know what Marilyn's real name was). Many of the most technically correct names are very different from their nearly as valid yet far more widely used equivalent. For example, the average visitor would probably be instantly turned off, and therefore away, if they clicked on a link to Jellyfish and were redirected to Scyphozoa. Scyphozoa is technically correct but is nearly a 100% equivalent of the far more common term "Jellyfish" and presents the article in a far more technical light than it actually is (the jellyfish article is far more accessible than that - but many potential readers of the article will be turned off by the technical name and not attempt reading it). Use of highly technical terms in naming articles should only be used when there is no widely used common equivelant. You should still have the technical name as part of the defintion paragrah and the article itself should note any minor differences between the useage and meaning of the common and technical term.

Doing things the wikiway we must name articles in such a way as to make direct linking easy and second nature within an edit window of an article. Otherwise we will have to type [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]], each and every time we want to create a direct link to Soviet Union (or even worse, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]]). Besides, the current software does not support counting "the pages that link here" of redirects as part of the "pages that link here" for the target of the redirect (I added a wikipedia:feature request on this a couple of months ago and haven't heard anything from the wikiware gods about it, nor has anyone else chimed in with support of the idea).

I just added said feature to the development code. --Brion VIBBER, Friday, April 26, 2002

So if we choose the most technically correct name for things, we will render the "pages that link here" utility virtually useless.

Remember your audience people. We shouldn't make wikipedia harder to use and less accessible to the average net user just to be technically correct. --maveric149

• Actually, I'm going to switch my earlier comment. I agree with maveric149 here now that I've re-read the naming conventions page and heard the argument. Seems I have to go against my instincts.. and here I thought I'd always been told "Go with your first choice, it's usually the correct one." Rarely seems to be the case here. :) Anyhow, given it had been decided and makes sense, I agree with the "use common names" even if I'd rather see it otherwise. I also hadn't realized that redirect pages didn't automatically redirect people unless clicked on directly. Rgamble

---

This isn't even a close call, folks. Of course it should be "Lovelace". The primary title of an article about a person should be the name by which that person is known to the public at large. "Legal" names are totally irrelevant to anyone except lawyers and judges. That's the policy in naming conventions, and there's good reason for it: primarily for accidental linking, but also to make searches more efficient. Putting this article under "Boreman" would be as silly as putting Marilyn Monroe's article under "Norma Jean Baker". -- Lee Daniel Crocker

---

No argument over the basic rule -- common names are the right ones, for all the reasons stated here and on the naming conventions page - and I think that a consensus has emerged here, which I generally prefer to go along with, and gladly will in this case. (However, the Queen Mother/Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon bit will have to be worked on then -- that had not been her legal name, nor her commonly known name for most of a century.)

But I think that this was a narrower call than you think, Lee, and deserves a little discussion, to handle future cases. Linda Lovelace/Boreman is not strictly the same case as Marilyn Monroe or Mark Twain. Both of those are pseudonyms used professionally throughout the life of the person, and in the case of Monroe, may have been legally adopted (I really don't know offhand). In addition, AFAIK, Marilyn Monroe made little if any effort to maintain any public identification with the name "Norma Jean Baker". Clemens, of course, was known under both names.

In this case however, this person spent the majority of her life trying to put distance between the two names, to make sure that she was known as Linda Boreman, not Linda Lovelace. This was not just personal preference, but intended to make a specific point, one that her family continued with after her death -- that Linda Boreman was (in one special and important sense) not Linda Lovelace. I think that the current article text that uses the surname "Boreman" throughout is a good approach to this. But Lee, I think that this was a special case, and a close call, where either approach would have been appropriate to consider. ClaudeMuncey, Thursday, April 25, 2002

---

Fair enough; and I agree that using "Boreman" throughout the text is fine. I also agree that she was probably billed as "Boreman" in her later speaking engagements and writings, so that should be mentioned. But let's face it: if I grab 100 random people off the street and ask them who "Linda Boreman" is, how many will know? If I ask the same question about "Linda Lovelace"? My off-hand guess would be about 0 and 80, respectively. Biographical articles probably ought to show some deference to the wishes of the subject, but in the end the articles are for us, not them. --LDC