Talk:John Charles Daly

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Andrewa (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. You linked to the broadcast of What's My Line? that immediately followed the death of regular panelist Dorothy Kilgallen, resulting in a heavily modified introductory sequence. Ordinarily, the announcer introduced only the first panelist, with each panelist introducing the next and the final panelist (usually Bennett Cerf from 1951 onward) introducing Daly.
  Here are timestamped links to the first five random installments I found on YouTube (in the order in which I viewed them) via a search for the show's title and by clicking through to related videos:
  Video 1
  Video 2
  Video 3
  Video 4
  Video 5
  In four out of five instances (all except #3), Cerf introduced the moderator as "John Charles Daly". Without asserting that this is a perfectly representative sample, I'm confident that he did so on literally hundreds of occasions over the years.
  As noted in the policy that you cited, when disambiguation is required, "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 considered best (when feasible). Parenthetical disambiguation, conversely, "is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title".
  In this case, there's no question that the man was commonly called "John Daly", but he also was well known as "John Charles Daly". (It was not by accident that many obituary writers referred to him as such.) With that natural disambiguation available, there simply is no need to append the unwieldy parenthetical disambiguation "(American media personality, born 1914)". —
  David Levy 11:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is a fact that Bennett Cerf, who had a longtime friendly jocular relationship with Daly, exhibited a predilection for introducing him as "John Charles Daly" (especially in the later years of the show) and, on at least one occasion, introduced him as "John Charles Patrick Croghan Daly". An introduction by anyone else, however, was invariably "John Daly".
In his radio broadcasts, Daly would always say, "This is John Daly" or "John Daly speaking", never referring to himself as "John Charles Daly". When asked in an interview about his reluctance to use the triple name, he explained that he did not wish to be perceived as taking on further patrician airs by using a form resembling John Foster Dulles or Charles Foster Kane.

If the main header were

John Daly and the News. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The backstory behind Cerf's introductions is immaterial, as is the extent to which he influenced others. We need't concern ourselves with why this individual is well known as "John Charles Daly". We need only establish that it's factually accurate and used by reliable sources – conditions that appear to be undisputed.

Likewise, there's no dispute that he was most commonly called "John Daly", but that title is unavailable. As noted above (and documented in the policy that you cited), in such cases, natural disambiguation ("using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly") is the preferred solution. Station1 has explained the benefit to readers.

Your argument regarding incoming links reflects a presumption that referring to the article's subject as "John Charles Daly" is incorrect. I disagree (for the reasons stated above). Regardless, piping all of the links to read "John Daly" (should there be consensus for that) would be a trivially simple task for a bot to carry out. Your desire to force such piping by making the article's title unsuitable for use in prose has no basis in policy.

"John Charles Daly and the News" certainly is incorrect, but a single editor's error – even if unequivocally attributable to this article's title (which it isn't, given the previously discussed fact that the man has been well known as "John Charles Daly" since the 1950s) – doesn't justify the change that you propose. —

David Levy 22:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

As there is an absence of dispute that subject was most commonly called "John Daly" (the image currently used in the infobox depicts subject above a prominent nameplate, "JOHN DALY"), there is also no dispute that he was frequently referenced as "John Charles Daly" or even "John Charles Daly, Jr.". Both of those forms would have served well as redirects, analogous to the redirect which depicts the rarely-used full form,

John Charles Patrick Croghan Daly

.

One may argue that Wikipedia users who, instead of typing

WP:COMMONNAME

, even if such form necessitated the use of a lengthy qualifier, rather than the less-common WP:COMMONNAME which avoided the qualifier.

From the time of this article's creation over 13 years ago, on May 18, 2004, the most-appropriate form of subject's name to be used in the article's main title header has never been discussed. Since Wikipedia will be around for centuries or even millennia, this matter may return for consideration, given the interest in the remote past and the ability to recapture long-gone broadcast signals. In the meantime, the historical record of this discussion, such as it is, may serve as an indication to those who care that it was raised and submitted for consideration. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One may argue that Wikipedia users who, instead of typing

John Daly (American media personality, born 1914), instead of finding the current form, John Charles Daly

, would have been better served since "John Daly" was the form used by subject, himself, throughout his career.

Users arriving at the disambiguation page currently see the following:

• John Charles Daly (1914–1991), American radio and television newsman and host of the TV panel game show What's My Line?

Readers aware that "'John Daly' was the form used by subject, himself, throughout his career" are highly likely to identity the desired article from the above description with little difficulty. —

David Levy 04:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose per David Levy above. He was very commonly known as John Charles Daly[1][2][3][4] and natural, neutral disambiguation of an article title is almost always preferable to artificial parenthetical qualifiers. With plain John Daly unavailable, readers are much more likely to search for John Charles Daly than for "American media personality" while also knowing when he was born. Station1 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, in your first example (from November 23, 1958), the paper's editor appended the headline, "John Charles Daly's 4 Lives", apparently ignoring the fact that the syndicated column carried the byline "By JOHN DALY". As for the lengthy qualifier, no one would expect users to type "

John Daly (American media personality, born 1914)". However, if that were the article's main title header, there would still be two basic methods of accessing the article — typing the John Charles Daly redirect or typing John Daly and searching for the most appropriate entry among the names listed upon the disambiguation page. Either way, there would be no greater inconvenience to users than there is under the present circumstances. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Your rationale appears to be based on disagreement with Wikipedia's longstanding preference for natural disambiguation, not a concern relevant to this article in particular. —

David Levy 04:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed the John Daly byline, and if John Daly were available as a title I'd have no problem with it. Whether the headline writer ignored the byline or purposely used "John Charles Daly" and "broadcaster" to better identify him to the paper's readers is something we'll never know. Your second point, that there would be no greater inconvenience to searchers under the proposal than there is at present, is true. But by the same token, there would be no greater convenience. Since there would be no improvement to the status quo on that score, I still think his actual name is a better choice than artificial disambiguation. Station1 (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Per above. Also, this encyclopedia, another encyclopedia, this book, that book, another book, another one, another one, and more. I found one source prominently using "John Daly" and some others. However, per
  WP:NATURAL, ambiguous names are to be generally avoided, so a more precise natural name can be used if also commonly used (more or less than the other name). George Ho (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - Per above. Why throw him in with the golfer and all the other John Dalys? DetroitWheels74 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2017 (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.