Talk:George E. Brewer

Requested move 20 October 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (and will delete the disambiguation page after moving, so that it's deleted history is in the right place). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• George E. Brewer (historian) → George E. Brewer
• George E. Brewer → George E. Brewer (disambiguation)

– Current title has unnecessary disambiguation MB 20:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support agree — the disambiguated title is not necessary. Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support George E. Brewer (historian) → George E. Brewer, Oppose George E. Brewer → George E. Brewer (disambiguation), as per Roman Spinner below. Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. George Emerson Brewer could also clearly be referred to as George E. Brewer. Although the article should be renamed to George E. Brewer (politician), which is what he's notable for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Contested. Necrothesp your comment below dated 11:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC) invalidates your own argument opposing the move!! Since, referring to the article George Emerson Brewer, the subject's own grave marker [1] carries his full middle name, we are to infer by your own statement below that that is his common name, and therefore we should NOT rename it to George E. Brewer as you suggest above. Your entire argument contesting opposing the move is therefore INVALID. Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• I did not suggest that George Emerson Brewer should be renamed! However, full names are often listed on gravestones and in obituaries. That does not make them the common name or my argument invalid. My point was that if a full name is not listed on a gravestone then it suggests that their full name was most certainly not their common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, I understand what you are saying. Should we then infer from that and your additional comments below that you would support the move as proposed for George E. Brewer (historian) but not for the DAB page, as suggested by Roman Spinner? Then we could close this out with a unanimous consensus ...

• Move to George Evans Brewer per WP:NATURAL. That is how he is referred to in both refs in the article, and avoids any ambiguity in the title. George E. Brewer can remain a dab page. Station1 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not actually true. His gravestone (the second reference) bears the name George E. Brewer, which suggests that was his common name. Per WP:MIDDLENAME, we don't add middle names for the purposes of disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The guideline at WP:MIDDLENAME recommends against using middle names for disambiguation only "if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person". That's in line with policy at WP:NATURAL which recommends use of middle names, even if not the most common, as long as they are not obscure or made up. I have no objection to using plain George E. Brewer for this person and just adding a hatnote pointing to George Emerson Brewer, in the spirit of ONEOTHER. But a natural middle name, used in at least one reliable source, is preferable to a qualifier that we make up. Station1 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, since the other source is not online we can't check it to see what the article actually says. The fact his gravestone lists his middle initial but not his middle name is a very good indicator as to what his common name was. It was clearly George Brewer or George E. Brewer, but not George Evans Brewer. If it had been the latter then that's what the gravestone would have said. If a middle name, even if not commonly used, was better than a parenthetical disambiguator than that's what we'd use for pretty much everyone with a middle name, as sources can be found somewhere listing most people's middle names. That doesn't make them their common names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
        • The nominator MB has called this correctly. The article George Emerson Brewer is appropriately titled, since the subject's grave marker [2] lists his full middle name. On the other hand, most of the other sources that I have researched for the current article under discussion list the name as George E. Brewer. A link to the article in the Alabama Historical Quarterly is provided: [3]. Can't we just rename this article as suggested by the nominator (with no "artificial" disambiguation)? I do not really like the disambiguation "(historian)" or any other because he is really notable for all of his work and should not be singled out as having made more impact in any one area. Thank you. Johnnie Bob (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks for adding that link. It does refer to him as George Evans Brewer, as do other sources.[4][5][6] I think either George E. Brewer or George Evans Brewer are fine, but I agree artificial qualifiers are less desirable. Station1 (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
            • Note that the photograph of him is captioned "George E. Brewer"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
              • Sure. No question George E. Brewer is a common name, as is George Evans Brewer. First mention in running text is often the standard, but like Franklin Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a person may have more than one common name, even if one is most common. If one article's best title is George E. Brewer and the other's is George Emerson Brewer, there's no title conflict and a hatnote is enough. I only suggested George Evans Brewer as a sort of compromise because of the oppose comment. Station1 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support George E. Brewer (historian) → George E. Brewer per death certificate as well as gravestone and would also support the full form George Evans Brewer per above links listed by Station1. Either form would enable the deletion of the parenthetical qualifier "(historian)". Oppose George E. Brewer → George E. Brewer (disambiguation). Wikipedia has entries for four men named "George Brewer" — George Brewer, George E. Brewer (historian), George Emerson Brewer and George Keefer Brewer. The separate George E. Brewer / George E. Brewer (disambiguation) page lists only two of the four men and the nomination would create a WP:ONEOTHER situation, with the historian becoming the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the surgeon/urologist, while still excluding the other two men. I suggest deletion of the George E. Brewer disambiguation page, especially since three of the four "George Brewer" entries already carry explanatory hatnotes, which can be enhanced if needed, while the fourth entry — George Keefer Brewer — is a redirect to George "Superman" Reeves. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks to me like a consensus has been reached. For George E. Brewer (historian) -> George E. Brewer):

MB (nominator):	Implicit support.
Johnnie Bob:	Support.
Necrothesp:	Seems to support move George E. Brewer after discussion of alternative title George Evans Brewer.
Station1:	Support (after discussion).
Roman Spinner:	Support.

And for George E. Brewer -> George E. Brewer (disambiguation)):

MB (nominator):	Not counted.
Johnnie Bob:	Oppose.
Necrothesp:	Unclear.
Station1:	Seems to Oppose (after discussion).
Roman Spinner:	Oppose.

I will be closing this discussion and performing the move now. Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• As a participant in the discussion, you should not close this. A disinterested admin or other editor will come along and take care of it. Station1 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I know, I am just trying to move this along toward some form of resolution . But I will not close it myself per WP:RMCLOSE.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.