Talk:Ronald Howard (actor)

Fair use rationale for Image:Marion-Crawford Howard.jpg

Image:Marion-Crawford Howard.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Ronald Howard (British actor). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024013919/http://lesliehowardsociety.multiply.com/ to http://lesliehowardsociety.multiply.com/

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) 06:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Subjective POV and no citation

"In the mid-1970s, he reluctantly put aside his acting career to run an art gallery." Says who? It is always difficult to divine someone's feeling about their own career move, especially without quotes, citations, or any kind of attempt at being encyclopedic. Please provide a citation, or remove. 2.31.164.15 (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong link

Light Fingers (1957) clicks-thru to the page for the racehorse of that name. Valetude (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2026

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: no consensus. (edit 19:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC): moved, additional edit 21:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC): Ron Howard is almost never known as Ronald Howard; thus SMALLDIFFERENCES--Thryduulf's argument is also unrebuted so I've given less weight to "Oppose because ambigious with Ron" comments.) (closed by non-admin page mover) msk 18:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Ronald Howard (British actor) → Ronald Howard (actor) – (actor) is sufficient as disambiguator. The other one is much better known as Ron Howard. ~2026-44424-55 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. msk 19:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)— Relisting. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 23:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Seems a good move. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Fine with that as a title, but in that case we will need a disambiguation statement at top, as Ron Howard is also Ronald Howard and an actor, and has been credited as things-that-are-not-quite Ron, if never as Ronald (Ronnie, Ronny). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree, from the Ron Howard page. "For other people named Ronald Howard, see Ronald Howard.". Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose even if Ron Howard is better known as "Ron Howard" his actual name is also "Ronald Howard" so this would clearly be ambiguous disambiguation. The American one has 169,841 views compared with only 5,938 for the British one[]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Incomplete disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Crouch, Swale - if then this would have to be a multi move also finding consensus to disambiguate Ron Howard. Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject England and WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Both articles would be at the common name so there is no incomplete disambiguation issue, and hatnotes can resolve any residual confusion - that's the purpose of them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support, SMALLDIFFERENCES seems to apply here since they have different COMMONNAMES. Hatnote should suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortizesp (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment See also a somewhat-related discussion in 2023 at Talk:Sam Jackson (actor). 162 etc. (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Ron Howard's name is Ronald. That's sufficient to create ambiguity. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:46, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Ambiguity in between his non-common name and a different person can be handled by hatnotes in exactly the same way as if there were only two people with this name and one was primary. Which is fortunate as there are only two actors with this name and one is primary for the name "Ron" and the other is primary for the name "Ronald". Why would be not put them at their common names and use hatnotes? Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Because the titles are ambiguous and this would as such be incomplete disambiguation, regardless of WP:COMMONNAME the actual name of both people is the same so per WP:ATDAB and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT the proposed title would not be appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Articles should be at their common name, there is no conflict between their common names. Nothing else is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Articles should indeed be at their common name as the final title but that doesn't mean that other titles aren't ambiguous with the subject. As I've shown (1) the American one's actual name is "Ronald Howard" and (2) the American one has over 28x as many views meaning even if only 1 in 28 readers expected "Ronald Howard" instead of "Ron Howard" for the American one the American one would still be more likely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I see no reason to expect that even 1 in 28 would go for Ronald Howard. It's a name he's never used professionally -- checking his many, many acting and producing credits on IMDb, not a single one of them is to Ronald (Ronny and Ronnie, yes, never Ronald). For "British actor" to wok as the disambiguation, it relies on not knowing that he's called Ron but knowing what English-speaking country he is from, which seems an odd cut. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I too see no evidence that anybody is expecting the biography of the American actor to be located at Ronald Howard (actor), let alone 1 in 28 people. For that you have to know or suspect that (a) he is called Ronald, despite his never being credited as that, (b) that the article would be titled "Ronald Howard", despite his never being credited as that, and (c) that there are other people called "Ronald Howard", none of whom are actors more commonly known as "Ronald Howard" than the American actor is - despite there actually being an actor who is more commonly known as "Ronald Howard" than the American. I just don't find that plausible, and nobody has presented any evidence to show it is plausible let alone common. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that it doesn't look like the American one is called "Ronald" very much but it is still his legal name just like the British one. The consensus for having titles with ambiguous disambiguation is limited and at least there is consensus that the bar is tougher than normal primary topics, see WP:PDAB. As far as the Sam Jackson discussion goes the difference there is that Samuel L. Jackson might not have used the variant "Sam" rather than the original name much. If we were talking about the reverse namely the American one was normally called "Ronald Howard" and the British one normally "Ron Howard" the it would be different since "Ron Howard" would not be the legal name of the other but as it stands "Ronald Howard" is the legal name of the American one so this is ambiguous disambiguation which should generally be avoided. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  The only thing we should care about is that the majority of readers get to the article they want to read with the minimal amount of effort and getting into the weeds about legal names is directly contrary to the spirit of our article titling PAGs - especially since they explicitly state that it's the common name that matters rather than the legal name. If we have to downweight PDAB in order to have an article be at a title that is in practice unambiguous, well then so be it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Article titles should be at the common names but qualifiers should generally be unambiguous rather than relying on actual titles per our internal conventions to have ambiguous qualifiers which is against WP:PRECISION. Moving would suggest to readers that there is only 1 notable actor called "Ronald Howard" which isn't the case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  For all practical purposes there is only one notable actor called "Ronald Howard", but it's interesting that this is never used as an argument when there is primary topic - "Richard O'Brien is at the base title, therefore it suggests to readers there is only one notable person called "Richard O'Brien". We assume that readers are intelligent enough to see, read and follow the link in the hatnote if they want other people, including Richard O'Brien (American actor). Internal conventions must always take a back seat to what is better for the reader, in this case what is best for the reader is "Ron Howard (actor)" and "Ronald Howard (actor)" linked by hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Primary topics are an exception see the Energy example of WP:PRECISION. WP:QUALIFIER says "If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated.". Since there is no primary topic for the title "Ronald Howard" this article needs to be disambiguated and since there are 2 actors the nationality needs to be used as well. "Ronald Howard (actor)" is not best for the reader since it is ambiguous and thus confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is no practical difference, there is just a difference in Wikipedia's internal style guides. Readers should never be required to know our titling PAGs before being able to find the article they are looking for, and when you look at it from the perspective of a reader the distinction you make is meaningless. And, once again, in practical terms, "Ronald Howard (actor)" isn't ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  The legal name of both people is the same, if it wasn't for Wikipedia's internal style guides the American one could be titled this. That the American one has a different common name doesn't mean that he isn't called this name. Commons names matter for deciding what the best title is but all names matter (including official ones) when deciding how much WP:PRECISION to use. Readers not aware of our titling PAGs would find the title ambiguous and when a reader wants this article either they will type "Ronald Howard" and end up on the DAB (so can click on this article) or they will find this article in the search sugguestions and if they search for "Ronald Howard (actor)" they will end up on the DAB but if moved readers might click on the wrong entry on the DAB page or when they see it in the search suggestions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  The disambiguation on the DAB page will be at least as much or more than any disambiguation currently done in the titles, so if they're going to end up on the wrong page after that, they'd've ended up on the wrong page under the current scheme. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No, if readers end up at the wrong article they will be able to follow the hatnote to the other one in exactly the same way that they would if these were the only two notable people with this name, or if they don't know whether the actor they want is British or American, or they don't know that the Ron(ald) Howard they heard someone mention is an actor, or a myriad of other ways people might end up on the wrong directly or by clicking the wrong link on the dab page. There is literally no difference for a reader. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's better to use the unambiguous qualifier and readers end up on the correct title on the 1st click rather than an ambiguous and confusing title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  If it were that simple then we wouldn't have primary topics at all, every article would be at an unambiguous title. In reality nearly everybody understands that a minority of people looking for a non-primary topic will end up on the wrong page and have to follow a hatnote. This is normal and not a problem. Even the guideline you referenced earlier, WP:PDAB, unambiguously states A request for comments concluded on 3 September 2019 that PDABs can have primary topics

  Also, I have to repeat: in practice the qualifier here is unambiguous: exactly no evidence at all has been presented that anybody is looking for the American actor under the title Ronald Howard (actor). If it were close to even between British and American actors your arguments would make sense and we wouldn't be having this discussion. If there was a sizeable but clear minority looking for the American actor here we may or may not be having the discussion but your arguments would make sense. If there was a small minority then we definitely would be having the discussion and your arguments might or might not be appropriate. If there was a tiny minority then your arguments wouldn't hold much water but they would still be somewhat rational. However, what we have here is even less than a tiny minority, it's an entirely theoretical minority that we have no evidence exists in practice, so your arguments stretch credulity. So even if we take already too-strict standards of WP:PDAB, and make them twice as strict as they currently are, the case for the British actor to be primary among all actors known by the name "Ronald Howard" is clearly made. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  When there is a primary topic then that's fine we use the base title. The (controversial) RFC in 2019 was that "the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator" which I think would be more than double normal PTs. The qualifier is not unambiguous as the legal name of both people is "Ronald Howard" and both are actors, that the American one may be commonly known as "Ron Howard" does not take away the fact that his actual name is still "Ronald Howard". As I have shown the American one has over 28x as many views yes over 28x as many views so even if the American one is nearly always called "Ron Howard" it seems unlikely the British one would pass the tougher standard. I see no benefit as far as the point about reader navigation goes as I don't see why you would you would almost always be expecting this topic if you qualified with "actor" as many people are going to know that "Ron" is short for "Ronald" and if you aren't aware Wikipedia doesn't always use legal names you would probably expect the American one to be here. Qualifiers should generally be unambiguous in a practical and technical sense and I see no reason why this would be the case if moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  For someone to be looking for the American actor at this title all of the following must be true, simultaneously:

  • The searcher knows the person they are looking for is an actor
  • The searcher knows person's legal name is Ronald Howard
  • The searcher knows there are other notable people called Ronald Howard
  • The searcher knows that Wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguation
  • The searcher knows that Wikipedia uses a person's occupation as the disambiguator
  • The searcher does not know that Wikipedia titles articles using a person's common name and/or does not know that the person's common name is Ron Howard
  • The searcher thinks that Wikipedia titles articles using a person's legal name
  • The searcher thinks there are no other actors called Ronald Howard
  • The searcher is not following a link to the person's article

  It is almost inconceivable that this has ever happened. You have presented no evidence that this has ever happened. If, in the extremely unlikely event it did ever happen, all the searcher would need to do is click a single link in the hatnote of the British actor's article.

  I expect this to be my last comment here as if you still think that a significant number of readers will be inconvenienced by the move then it's clear that anything else I could say would be a waste of everybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Support – I find Thryduulf's argument rather convincing here. There's no reason to believe that the amount of readers that would end up at a page they did not want if we carried out this move would be close to the amount of readers who are ending up at the page they do not want as things stand (to a reader it matters little whether they have to click a link in a hatenote or a link on a disambiguation page; an extra click is an extra click). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Thryduulf. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Participants are roughly split following new arguments within the last ≈24 hours so I'm relisting to allow more time to discuss. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, Slatersteven, Nat Gertler, Thryduulf, Ortizesp, Maltazarian and Skarmory. Ronald Howard was a well-known actor who had never been credited by any other name. On the other hand, Ron Howard was never known to the public as "Ronald" and would be unrecognizable under that name. Hatnotes should indeed suffice. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  Regardless of how known to the public the American one is his name is still "Ronald" as well. As I've shown he has over 28x as many views. As I have already noted many people are aware that "Ron" is an alternative name for "Ronald" so it is quite obvious that the proposed title is ambiguous, the title therefore fails WP:PRECISE and would clearly be a WP:PDAB. The thought that another person is not ambiguous (and a PDAB can be forced when the other has over 28x as many views) with their legal name because they use a variant of it is is quite frankly ridiculous. I know lot's of people who use variants of their legal name in common usage but even though I know then by their variants I still know their legal names. With this case many readers might not even know what names they use. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Thryduulf. This can always be revaluated through wikinav data and reverted if it is shown that a significant amount of readers are arriving here looking for Ron Howard, however I find that unlikely. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Currently moving towards support, but still no consensus. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 23:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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.