Talk:John Collier (artist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I disagree with the move to "John Mahler Collier" and, since the original title "John Collier" seems no longer to be available, have moved to "John Collier (artist)". But I think "John Collier" was better. John Collier always signed his paintings and his books "John Collier" and was not, so far as I am aware, ever known in any context by any other name. There is not a single Google hit on "John Mahler Collier" except this Wikipedia article - pretty remarkable, given that ' "john collier" painter ' generates 65,800 Google hits, almost all of which (judging from the early pages, anyway) refer to this artist. I wonder what the source is for calling him John Mahler Collier? But even if that was his birth name, the example of e.g. Arthur Evelyn St John Waugh, who is in Wikipedia under his universally used names "Evelyn Waugh" suggests that the article should be under the best known name, with perhaps a redirect from the little if ever used full names. If disambiguation is necessary, which perhaps it is, I do not think this is the answer; a disambiguation page will do fine. It may also be relevant that the man who now holds the "John Collier" slot on Wikipedia appears to have been much less influential and prominent in his chosen field (short story writer) than the painter was, and to have had the full names "John Henry Collier" (see edit summary dated 16 November 2003, which moved his article to "John Collier (writer)" from "John Henry Collier" for precisely the reasons (that is the name by which he is known) that cause me to object to this move for the painter). Incidentally, the spelling of the painter's middle name in this article differs in the new page name ("Mahler") and at the beginning of the article ("Maler") and in the edit summary accompanying the move ("Malher"); I am not sure which is correct since I am unaware of any of them. Chelseaboy 16:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
