Talk:John Scotus (bishop of Dunkeld)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to John Scotus (Bishop of Dunkeld). JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John the Scot (bishop) → John the Scot (died 1203) — The current title is ambiguous. I propose redirecting it to John Scotus and moving this article. If this move succeeds, should the Mecklenburger bishop be moved to John the Scot (died 1066)? I am not sure how common the anglicised form of his name is. — Srnec (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose move as proposed - see below. Tevildo (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I agree that the article's title isn't ideal, and should be changed. My suggestion would be Johannes Scotus (Bishop of St Andrews), with the Mecklenburger bishop at Johannes Scotus (Bishop of Mecklenburg). I don't think the hybrid form (John Scotus) should be used for any of the articles - we should use either all-English or all-Latin. I've seen "John the Scot" used in popular works on philosophy to refer to Eriugena, so I would agree with redirecting all the current "John the Scot" articles to the dab page. Tevildo (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we're never going to call Eriugena John the Scot, so that is the sort of thing that can be handled by a dab header. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree - however, I'd still point out that it's quite likely that someone who enters "John the Scot" into the Search box will be looking for Eriugena. My suggestion is to keep the dab page at John Scotus, redirect John the Scot, John the Scot (bishop) and Johannes Scotus to the dab page, and have the two ambiguous articles at [Name (See)]. Whether "Name" is John Scotus or Johannes Scotus, and whether "See" is "Bishop of X" or just "X", don't seem to be particularly important; what the "X"'s are - (St Andrews? Dunkeld? Glasgow? Meklenburg?) isn't something I'm qualified to comment on. Tevildo (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have four names on the dab page; two of them have unambiguous common names: Duns Scotus and Eriugena. If the remaining two bishops are both most commonly called by the same name, the obvious way to disambiguate them is with their sees - (St. Andrews) and (Mecklenburg) are enough; if not, again, using common names and dab headers will suffice. (Birth and death dates are bad choices; noone will search for them, and they are often disputed.)

Could we please have some data? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer John Scotus (Bishop of Dunkeld), since his tenure of that see was permanent and recognized by everyone. John the Scot, the title I created this article with, looks really odd and is rarely used in English ... I did so only because it was free as a name. I agree that all the John Scotus variants should go to one dab page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put in a formal Support for this proposal (John Scotus (Bishop of Dunkeld)), to reduce the risk of this being closed as "No consensus". Tevildo (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal is fine by me. I'd like to see "John the Scot" or "Johannes Scotus" as the dab page with "John Scotus" redirecting there. All the individuals can be named unambiguously and all ambiguous forms direct to a dab page. The German bishop can be at Johannes Scotus (Bishop of Mecklenburg) under this scheme. Is there a reason not to use the Latin Johannes for the Scottish bishop too? Srnec (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather bother were John. Johannes is Latin, while the ethnicities of both bishops are not certain. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does Latin to do with ethnicity here? I'd prefer "John the Scot" to "John Scotus", because, like Tevildo, I don't like the hybrid look. John the Scot has definitely been used of the bishops of Mecklenburg and St Andrews. I just checked at GoogleBooks to be sure. The only really concern for me, though, is that the ambiguity be cleared up. Srnec (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.