Talk:James Westcott III

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Requested move 24 January 2017 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to James Westcott III. Per consensus agreed below. There doesn't seem a need to let this run any longer, so closing now. If anyone objects, let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply



James Westcott, Jr.James Westcott Jr.WP:JR ―Mandruss  22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - his father James Westcott is apparently called Jr. too. Should this guy be III or something? not sure how it works.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @Amakuru: This is flagged as contested, but I don't see any challenge in WP:RMT's history. Are you the challenger? If so, the choice between Jr. and III or something is separate and independent from removing the comma per WP:JR. ―Mandruss  20:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I sent it for discussion because I'm not sure what's going on. The proposed target is currently a redirect to James Westcott, so there seems to be some confusion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @Amakuru: That confirms what I said. Removal of the comma does not make that confusion any better or worse, and I think it should proceed. ―Mandruss  22:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Support deletion of comma. The "Jr." son of "Jr." peculiarity also requires a resolution, possibly as a separate nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Support deletion of comma. Disambiguating these two people by a comma is beyond silly. However, we need a better proposal since the target is taken as a redirect to the other Jr. Mandruss, please work out more specifically what you're proposing, and I expect I'll support it. I think I'd go with III, like this book, and say he is also known as Jr. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @Mandruss: would you be happy for this to be moved to James Westcott III? That seems to be the best choice right now, per Dicklyon's evidence above. It seems like the father is primary for both plain James Westcott and the James Westcott Jr. title, which means both the source and target should simply redirect to James Westcott with a hatnote to JW III. If you're happy with that arrangement then we can close the RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @Amakuru: No objection to that. ―Mandruss  11:12, 26 January 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.

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Westcott III. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply