Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Hussey
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Elizabeth Hussey
edit- ... that Elizabeth Hussey allowed the first of the tracts by the anonymous satirist Martin Marprelate to be printed on a secret press at her home at East Molesey in October 1588?
- Reviewed: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme
Created by NinaGreen (talk). Self nominated at 00:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC).
Article is new enough, long enough, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Hook fact is cited inline and hook ref verified. QPQ done. The only question I have about this page is its title. She may have been born Elizabeth Hussey, but by what name is she most widely known? It would seem to be Elizabeth Crane. Moreover, per WP:MOS style, she should be referred to as "Crane" (or, in later paragraphs, "Carlton") rather than her full name from the second mention onwards. Yoninah (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the WP:MOS requirement that people should be referred to only by their surnames from the second mention onwards. Could you direct me to it? I looked for it at WP:MOS just now, but it's a huge page and I couldn't find it. NinaGreen (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:SURNAME. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
-
- They're not all changed, and the alternating surnames are confusing. Are you moving the page to Elizabeth Crane or Elizabeth Carlton? Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've changed all the ones which can be changed without confusing readers as to who is meant. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by 'the alternating surnames are confusing'. The surnames in the article don't alternate; they follow in sequence. She was born Elizabeth Hussey, became Elizabeth Crane at her first marriage, and Elizabeth Carleton at her second marriage. I don't think it's best to move the article. She was Elizabeth Crane when the first of the Marprelate tracts was printed, but was prosecuted for her part in the printing as Elizabeth Carleton, so I think it's best simply to title the article with her maiden name, particularly since she came from the Hussey family, which was very well known at the time on its own. Hope this all helps, and the nomination can be moved along. NinaGreen (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- While your reasoning would work for a newspaper or magazine article, it's not the way Wikipedia pages are named. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. A Google search of "Elizabeth Hussey" turns up nothing; when the search is defined to Elizabeth Hussey East Molesey it yields 77,300 results. A Google search of Elizabeth Crane East Molesey yields 238,000 results, and Elizabeth Carleton East Molesey yields 793,000 results. The page could be renamed Elizabeth Crane Carleton. I would do it myself, but knowing your expertise in the subject, would prefer that you come up with the solution. Best, Yoninah (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh dear me, no, Yoninah, that would be a frightful anachronism. Even now, the notion of women using earlier and later surnames together is overwhelmingly a North American one, but no one anywhere in the English-speaking world did such a thing (except when her husband added her surname to his) until hundreds of years after Elizabeth Hussey's time. And the Google searches you are relying on tell us nothing about the name or names used for her in reliable sources. I do not see what is troubling you, and indeed you make a nonsense of your own logic, because this lady's "commonname" is certainly not "Elizabeth Crane Carleton". Moonraker (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I brought up this discussion when looking at the article and seeing all the "Elizabeth Hussey"'s, "Elizabeth Crane"'s, and "Elizabeth Carleton"'s inserted in the text to designate the subject at different periods of her life. It would be far better to call her Elizabeth Crane, which appears to fit the bulk of sources, and refer to her as "Crane" throughout per WP:SURNAME. Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Better from the point of view of a kind of tidiness, perhaps, but not better from all points of view. It is firmly in the tradition of biography to refer to subjects by the name they had at the time in question, and not by a name they had at a different time, and I see no need for that approach to be stamped out in the English Wikipedia. And if Nina Green prefers not to move the page to "Elizabeth Crane", does it really matter? Moonraker (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I really don't understand your last comment, Moonraker. And we haven't even heard from Nina Green; you're doing all the talking for her. I adjusted the presentation so it won't be so confusing as to who she's married to at different times, and will leave it at that. Hook ref verified. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
