The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No indication that this is a double name for any of the entries, rather than just a given name/middle name combo. The bishop actually has a compound surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction between a "double name" versus a "given name/middle name combo"? Isn't a middle name just another given name (after the first name)?—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A double name is a given name formed by two names, e.g. in either Pope John Paul, where John Paul is the given name. These are usually hyphenated. A middle name is a name that is given but is not a given name. People aren't typically referred to by it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in countries whose forms list "given names", where first name and middle name are expected to be listed. Some airlines' ticket systems do this too. —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life, especially not within the countries they are from. In any case the article's phrasing of John Taylor as a double name is incorrect. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life ...: If that is indeed the case (no opinion), the respective page titles should be using parenthetical disambiguation with a more common name, and not attempting natural disambiguation with a supposed uncommon "John Taylor" in their page title. Per WP:NATDIS: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. —Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I'm not sure how many are commonly referred to with the "Taylor" included, but they would likely either be referred to by their full name or first and last name. It would be rather unusual for them to be known by just their first and middle name. I'd assume there's a reason why such indexes aren't typically created on Wikipedia. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of this post seems to have a strange desire to remove all links to the name 'John Taylor' from Wikipedia and has been editing out hatnotes denoting this from numerous articles to push this point of view. Given there are over 200 individuals named John Taylor on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor), this would make for a nonsensical decision, because this act is removing a useful search function. Author of this post has also has a history of edits being repeatedly reverted after deleting segments from numerous articles for seemingly no rationale other than styling Wikipedia to suit their personal preference and then nominating the articles for deletion when his / her edit wars don't get approved. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're so passionate about deleting things you dislike unless it's a spectrum issue. Yet given you've announced on my talk page that you're going to delete names, despite no consensus being agreed to on doing so, it seems you've set your mind to acting on whatever you please without considering the use of Wikipedia (especially for those new to the platform) towards anyone but yourself. Many would suggest you abide by the rules of considering the input of community discussions before engaging in mass deletions which will rightfully be reverted. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are verging on Wikipedia:No personal attacks with a non-existent "spectrum issue". An editing guideline, not my dislikes, drives my edits. And I'm not deleting names as you falsely claim, merely useless hatnotes. Also, you've been reverted by both me and an IP for your insistence on keeping a hatnote to John Taylor in John Taylor Gatto, which makes no sense. Finally, contrary to your inaccurate insinuation, I have created dozens of name lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many of these people were known as "John Taylor" vs. those were their first and middle names? I don't think this dab page is necessary beyond the ones we already have. Reywas92Talk21:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm reluctant to close this when few participants have provided policy-based reasons for Keeping or Deleting this article. This shouldn't come down to a personal preference. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: This is not a matter of personal preferences, as MrEarlGray claims, but rather there is not a shred of evidence that "John Taylor" is a real given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no policy-based rationale offered for deletion, and there is a plain one for keep. Per WP:DAB, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." And all 14ish people linked on this page have a WP:COMMONNAME that starts "John Taylor". Regardless of whether "John Taylor" was intended to be a double-barreled name like "Mary-Kate" or some such, people searching for on the commonly names of these individuals will experience easier navigation with this page (and it actually helps navigation since it breaks them out from the firstname/lastname John Taylors on the other dab page). (P.S. I removed the bishop with the double-barreled last name who was incorrectly added to this dab page.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. No policy-based rationale? The article explicitly claims it is a double name, plus it's right there in the article's title. Where's the evidence that this is another Billy Joe? We don't create lists for any two random names. The search function is quite adequate for that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: IMO you're missing the point. This is not a given name, so why should a lying article be spared? Something like "Billy-Joe" shows up in name websites,[1][2] as does "Betty Jane",[3][4] but nothing, zilch, nada for "John Taylor" as a given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was offerring my opinion on the state of the discussion. But given these challenges, I'll leave this discussion for another closer to handle in case my perception is inaccurate. Let's see how a different closer sees this. LizRead!Talk!23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In support of the rebuttal, we have John Taylor (disambiguation) for people actually named John Taylor. None of these people are likely to be known as "John Taylor" since it's their first and middle name and therefore for disambiguation purposes this page would run afoul of WP:PTM. I suppose someone could forget the surname of one of the people listed and just remember the John Taylor part of their name but that's why we have the search function rather than indexing every random first/middle name combo that exists. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.