Jump to content

Talk:Mary Miller (art historian)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VfD

[edit]

On April 15, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mary Miller for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Section name

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was not moved. Aervanath (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Miller → Mary Ellen Miller — No more important than other Mary Millers. The Mary Miller disamb should be the main Mary Miller. King Bedford I Seek his grace 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Mary Miller (art historian) might fit more per WP:NC. YeshuaDavid (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer simpler names. A full name is more likely to be guessed than a description.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 12:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When this historian article got moved back to Mary Miller, the mover said it was because she had so many links going to her. However, all those links are not from the main article space, but from individual reference sections where she wrote a book used to write the article. A big difference.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, for these reasons:
  • As was mentioned, out of the present 100+ incoming links from article space, all of them refer to the academic art historian. Her article has been at Mary Miller since it was created, five years ago. When a week or so ago this was unilaterally converted into a disambig page and her article moved off to Mary Ellen Miller, the practical effect was to increase link ambiguity, as all those links no longer pointed to their intended target, but the disambig page. The action created a much larger problem than the one it may have been intended to solve. All the other possible candidate Mary Millers have articles with far, far fewer incoming links, and none of those actually appear to need disambiguating. Making Mary Miller the disambig page creates a disambiguation problem, instead of solving one.
  • It is also mistaken to claim, that the art historian's links are all due to links from references for her books cited in an article. Although, even if true I don't see what difference that really makes—reference sections are as much a part of article namespace as any other section, and if anything it reflects the significance and scope of her contributions to art history and archaeology. She is also mentioned in the body of article next on numerous occasions, such as this one, this one, this, this, this, this, another here, & so on.
  • And finally, as for "no more important than": while none of these Mary Millers could probably be considered household names (and 'important' is not quite the right word, 'prominent' wld be better), what would be reasonable to choose between the three main contenders (whose names are actually Mary Miller)— an English theatrical & TV actress best remembered for a role in a 1970s 10-part series; a 19thC steamboat captain & first American woman to acquire a steamboat master's license; a Dean at one of the world's most prestigious universities and a multiply-published and cited academic with a career spanning three decades? --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. If anything one can make the point that Mary Miller (actress) is the primary use. Just because someone writes books and they are used as sources in articles is not a good way to determine primary use. I'd argue that the 59 references used to write the Mary Miller (actress) implies a much more notable person and better makes the case for primary use then another article that is based on only a single reference. Obviously this means that the current page needs to be moved to Mary Miller (art historian) or Mary Ellen Miller. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Number of references has never been a criteria for primary use. They could have all been to reference minor parts that no one ever saw. While most actresses enjoy more notoriety than most academics, that is not a given. Yale is of course fairly notorious or I guess notable. She seems to use Mary Miller professionally[1] and Mary Ellen Miller almost as a pen name.[2] I say keep it at the simpler title of Mary Miller. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I applaud the writers of the article on the actress for their liberal and entirely proper use of citations in that article. However, I note that fully 22 of those 59 cites are to IMDB entries, and a further 20 to the British Film Institute website. So not sure what conclusions could be drawn about whether this demonstrates the actress as particularly noteworthy in her field, or to the public at large, given these sources are not as diverse as may first appear and the nature of IMDB and BFI sites as primarily indexes and credit lists of all who were involved in some production, regardless of what they did. Would it make any difference if the art historian's article had a similar number, or more, inline cites, as it could easily do if someone took the time to do it? IMO the proposal here seems a bit like a solution in search of a problem—as mentioned all of the current incoming links here are for the art historian, and incoming links to the others' articles do not appear to be in need of disambiguating. I don't see how it makes navigation any easier to move things around so all of these 100+ incoming links no longer point to their correct target. If the most recent article move attempt is any guide, no-one is going to be bothered about fixing up the links afterwards so everything ends up pointing where it should. If you move these around, over a hundred subsequent edits will be needed to fix things so everything links as intended. If things are left as they are now, looks to me as if no additional edits would be required, as all is properly set up under the basis of the current arrangement. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:59, 14 June 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Miller (art historian). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary Miller (art historian). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Miller_(art_historian)&oldid=1209068939"