Talk:William Wand

Requested move

{{movereq|John Ward}}

John W. C. Wand → John Ward — Use of middle initials completely unnecessary DBD 15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - maybe it's my eyes but are you also requesting we change the surname from WAND to WARD? Green Giant (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that's embarrassing! DBD 21:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

{{movereq|John Wand}}

John W. C. Wand → John Wand — He is clearly the primary (if not only) topic DBD 00:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Green Giant (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. A couple of quick Googles [1] [2] gave about the same number of ghits for John W.C Wand and John Wand, the difference was that the first search gave almost entirely relevant hits, while it wasn't obvious whether any of the hits at all of the second were about this man, and obvious that most of them weren't. My conclusion is that the common name for him is probably the existing article title, and that even if we never have an article on any of the other men called John Wand, there are enough of them with enough prominence that in terms of precision we should stick with the longer name for this one. Andrewa (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sources don't support a move to this name. The Dictionary of Australian Biography uses John William Charles Wand. The ODNB uses William Wand and shows his fullname as (John) William Charles Wand, where the brackets indicate he was not known by his first name. This is supported by the title of his autobiography Changeful page : the autobiography of William Wand, formerly Bishop of London. As such I would support a move to William Wand. Tassedethe (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted indeed! Done and done DBD 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, good catch. Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)