Talk:Angela Zimmerman

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Untitled[edit]

Are we sure Andrew Zimmerman merits a wikipedia page?128.164.242.43 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response...I'll be clearer. I assume a figure must achieve a certain level of importance or influence before getting a wikipedia page. I do not think A. Zimmerman has achieved that level. There are a multitude of university professors across America around as accomplished as he in terms of quantitative output; he would only be distinguished if he had come up with an extremely novel idea that has influenced many other people, which certainly is not mentioned in the article. Does anyone care to provide a rationale?128.164.61.53 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There isn't anything in the article that shows he is notable enough. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman's work is well respected by colleagues in several different fields. He is a member of the community of people who write substantial works on history and therefore merits an article. A better question would be---what is your motivation for writing what you did? You pushed your point 2 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzydiz123 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this person only pushed their point one time. Can you please, Dizzydiz123, come up with a concrete rationale for keeping this page other that some quick platitudes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.180.153 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzydiz123, please read WP:NOTE. Provide reliable sources as evidence that he is, in fact, notable. Otherwise, this article is not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.130.33 (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 September 2021[edit]

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: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zimmerman → Andi Zimmerman – Per their faculty page (see citation), the subject of this article uses "they/them" pronouns and goes by the preferred name of Andi as opposed to their birth name of Andrew. I do not personally know them, so I am unsure of their correct gender identity (transgender or non-binary). There appears to be different treatment of their preferred name in relation to their scholarship. Barnes and Noble, for example, uses their preferred name, while Amazon does not. I am not sure of the policy regarding article titles and individuals' preferred names, so I am asking for further discussion before I move the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

MOS:GENDERID is the guideline covering this: A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it; introduce the name with "born" or "formerly". Without explicitly saying so, this implies that the article should be at Zimmerman's preferred current name. Other statements also imply this. See also the essay at WP:GENDERID: When a subject changes names for any reason (even one unrelated to gender), Wikipedia rarely hesitates to make the change promptly if it is clear the new name will be the common name of the person going forward in time.

I'm surprised that Barnes and Noble uses their preferred name when the book cover depicted clearly shows the name as "Andrew".

I don't think it's too far-fetched to think as if "Andrew Z." were a pen-name of Andi Z: If they are published (so far) mainly as "Andrew" then I'd assume that is how they are better known, and WP:COMMONNAME applies.

Both B&N and Amazon have Mary Ann Evans under the name "George Eliot", for example, although again to my astonishment I find that Orwell's collected works were written by George Orwell and Eric Arthur Blair.

Incidentally, I've changed "they" to "Zimmerman" in a couple of places in the article with these edits, but I would do the same if a section started with "he", "she" or "it": I changed "Zimmerman" to "they" in one place. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely have Andi Zimmerman as a page, even if a redirect. The question is really, "what will readers search for?" Some websites such as princeton.edu seem not to know Andi, others list the author as Andi even when the book cover picture or snapshot of a paper clearly says Andrew. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that there should be a redirect at least. My guess is that Andrew is probably the common name currently (e.g. the book I just purchased last month still says Andrew on it and on the order form), but, if other booksellers/publishers begin to switch, then Andi likely becomes the more common name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened - I had closed this RM discussion with the following rationale: The result of the move request was: not moved. There appears to be consensus that Andrew Zimmerman remains the common name at this time, and that Andi Zimmerman should be created as a redirect. Jack Frost (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC). However, following a request as one of the participants was a banned user I have elected to reopen and relist the discussion. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC) @Presidentman, Extraordinary Writ, and Tamzin: As interested parties. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:GENDERID. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:GENDERID —blindlynx (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reached out to Prof. Zimmerman, who has confirmed that they prefer "Andi" and that they identify as non-binary and transgender (meaning that MOS:DEADNAME applies); on that basis I support. If anyone would like, I can ask Prof. Zimmerman to verify this with VRT or on Twitter, but since the consensus here seems in favor of moving regardless, I'll hold off on bothering them with that unless requested. Also, ping correction for Presidentman and Extraordinary Writ. @Jack Frost: Just so you know, a ping needs to be placed on a newline to be sent. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.