Talk:Dick Sweeney

Requested move 29 August 2021

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: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED; WP:SNOW close User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is already clear that the SPA nominator is being tendentious and has not presented a valid rationale to request a move. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Dick Sweeney → Richard SweeneyRichard Sweeney – Richard is his legal name not the vulgar and sexist word Dick. Common name does not apply here. His name is Richard. The black bold article name Dick Sweeney must be changed to Richard Sweeney. Joshuastrode89 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Joshuastrode89, Jack Frost, and MuBoSko: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Name is wrong. Richard is his correct first name. | sig = Joshuastrode89 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC) | requester = Joshuastrode89}}

  Looking at the sources, which themselves leave somthing to be desired, is Dick Sweeney not the common name? --Jack Frost (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  A common name is not a legal first name. His name is Richard not Dick. The name of the article in bold black letters must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuastrode89 (talk • contribs)

• @Joshuastrode89: I'd just like to clear up a possible misconception; per the common name policy mentioned earlier, the title of the article is supposed to be the most common name used by sources, regardless of whether it's the subject's legal name. MuBoSko (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• A common name can be anything people want it to be. Dick is a vulgar and sexist word. Nobody calls themselves that. Richard is his name not Dick. It must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuastrode89 (talk • contribs)
• It must nothing. The sources in the article (as well as those others I found) clearly refer to him as "Dick Sweeney" rather than "Richard Sweeney", making this the common name per Wikipedia's policy, that is; the name which is commonly recognised and used in the sources. If you disagree with this, then either start a Requested Move discussion on the article's talkpage, or change the policy. However I would strongly suggest if you do choose to lodge a requested move discussion that your arguments are substantially more persuasive than "it's rude", "nobody calls themselves that", and "it must be changed" because this page and this policy would beg to differ. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• People were using "Dick" as a hypocoristic (= pet) form of "Richard", for ages before men started misusing it as one of several slang names for a certain part of the male body. See examples in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Dick+&namespace=0 . And see Dick. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose page move. 99% of reliable sources refer to him as Dick: , . Apparently that is how he refers to himself: , . Could make a redirect of Richard Sweeney to this article, though. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as clear he is addressed as Dick Sweeny in interviews, etc. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• It does not matter what people call him or what a society common name for him might be. Legal name is Richard. It must be changed now. Dick means penis. That is sexist towards men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuastrode89 (talk • contribs)

  Dick is a common name for Richard - it is not sexist outside of your mind. You have stated your opinion, no need to keep repeating KylieTastic (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and snow close. The proposal rationale is nonsense. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)