Talk:Charles Frederick Worth

Requested move 25 February 2014

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Charles Worth → Charles Frederick Worth – This is a move back to the original title which was moved with no prior discussion on original talk page or this one. His House is called the "House of Worth" and he has always been know as Charles Fredrick Worth see [1] for example and [2]to see how other non museum sites also call him by his full name. [3] shows how the fashion industry and archives also use his full name. [4] shows how he is listed in other museums and [5] and [6]encyclopedias. To facilitate ease of searching there could be (in fact should have been) a Charles Worth redirect to Charles Frederick Worth. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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 policy on article titles.

• Support Charles Frederick Worth. I honestly wouldn't know straightaway who "Charles Worth" was if you referred to him this way. He is ALWAYS referred to as Charles Frederick Worth in everything I've ever seen. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and literally hundreds of other books in Google Books - I've only gone with the museum publications and more serious books here. To be blunt, I honestly can't see why anyone would argue against this unless they were exceptionally obdurate. It's a complete and utter no-brainer. Keep the article title as it is. Mabalu (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Follow up comment - I see the Bourne Civic Society call their Local Celebrity "Charles Worth" and have a Charles Worth Gallery, but to be honest, that seems to be a small local history organization run by enthusiastic volunteers/amateurs. I'm actually surprised they call him Charles Worth, as while it's technically correct, that goes against almost everything else that has been published everywhere else since the 19th century... Mabalu (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

no comment on the validity of one name over the other, but I have moved the talk page back to sync with the article page until the consensus is shown, and adjusted the move request name above to match. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on the comments above, I would have suspected that with an open phrase charles worth search [16] the majority of hits would have filled in the Fredrick, but on the first page of hits, 7 of the first 8 hits that are obviously about this guy appear to be simply "Charles Worth" without the middle name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment/reply Looking at the results on those Google hits, I looked up the first mentions of Worth in each book:

• 1: Luxury Fashion Branding: Trends, Tactics, Techniques by Uché Okonkwo - Charles Frederick Worth in chapter header and first mention, then Charles Worth thereafter.
• 2: Fashion Zeitgeist: Trends and Cycles in the Fashion System by Barbara Vinken - First mentioned as Charles Frederick Worth, then Charles, then just "Worth".
• 3: Fashion - The Key Concepts by Jennifer Craik - Not a very well-researched book to be blunt. Lots of factual errors. Gets closing date of Worth wrong by several years. Thinks Poiret managed/directed the house. (he was employed briefly as a daywear designer and was never in such a elevated role). Charles Worth throughout, but generally, a very sloppily researched shoddy piece of writing.
• 4: The Berg Companion to Fashion edited by Valerie Steele - Important resource. Uses both Charles and Charles Frederick, but in the index, Frederick, and in the chapter heading (previewed on page 737 although page cannot be viewed) it is "WORTH, Charles Frederick".

Apart from the (rather poor) Craik book, the other three all first identify him as Charles Frederick, which indicates that this is the name by which he is best known and immediately recognised by. Mabalu (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just continuing, as you mentioned eight results and I just did the first four:

• 5: The Fashion Handbook by Tim Jackson, David Shaw Chapter header is "The houses of Worth, Doucet, Pingat and Poiret" but the first mention of Worth is as Charles Frederick.
• 6: Business Builders in Fashion by Jacqueline Kent - Chapter header reads "CHARLES FREDERICK WORTH" although in text he is referred to as Charles Worth or simply as Worth.
• 7: The Face of Fashion by Jennifer Craik - Charles Worth throughout. But this is our old friend from the third result, Jennifer Craik, who did such a poor job earlier.
• 8: Clothing through American History by Anita A Stamper and Jill Condra - Note that the first references to Worth are as Charles Frederick, as well as his first mention in the section on Haute Couture.

So based on the first eight results for Charles Worth, only one author (Ms. Craik) insists on always omitting the middle name, while the others all ensure that they introduce him by his full name in the beginning. I'd say that's pretty compelling. Mabalu (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no objections to that assessment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Nobody else cares about this? Really? Am inclined to just go ahead and move it back over the redirect (ALL those books/authors/museum websites/reliable sources can't be wrong), but yeah... slightly under-impressed that nobody else other than us three seems to have any thoughts regarding the naming such a major figure in fashion history. Mabalu (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope there are quite a few who do care, part of the problem being that the change was irrelevant and wrong in the first place. I have just discovered that the editor is cleansing Victoria Cross holders of their middle name. I assume there is a valid reason behind some of them but in this particular article and subject the change should not have been done, simple as that. I find it frustrating and slightly strange that an editor without any prior discussion (let alone knowledge) can change a name of a subject, but to correct that editors have to discuss, prove, and confirm. I do hope the editors that care for the Victoria Cross holders articles have the time and energy. Edmund Patrick – confer 10:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

closing

to decide, close this, and move back to Charles Frederick Worth, (with if deemed necessary a redirect from Charles Worth) now what is the next process as all this is new to me. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Charles Worth is now a redirect to the page. Mabalu (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Edmund Patrick – confer 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.