Talk:Hezza

This page is completely unencyclopedic. The first bit about Hessa could be added to Michael Heseltine, but who really cares. The rest is just a jumble of similar but unrelated nicknames. Every second bloke in Oz is called Bazza or Wazza or similar. This page should be deleted, but I'm not a deletionist, so I'm giving you a chance to make something of it before I put it to AfD. --Bduke 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather antipodean view. The form is an interesting phenonenon in the English press and there are several people, such as "Prezza" Prescott, who are well known by some forms. It is worth preserving these and does no harm! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.74.26 (talk • contribs) , at 09:11, 12 May 2006

Please sign your comment using ~~~~. I have no problem with "Prezza" being added to Prescott's article and so on. It has already been suggested that "Hezza" be added to Michael Heseltine's article. WP is not a collection of isolated facts. The "form", as you call it, is also an Australian phenonemon, but it is non-notable there and it is non-notable in the UK (which I do understand as I lived there for 40 years and visit frequently). --Bduke 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything inherently unencyclopaedic about this article, and it's not a collection of isolated facts. The idea that its being a common phenomeon makes it somehow non-notable is absurd. There is perhaps a problem with the title. Heseltine is by no means the best known example of the phenomenon, in fact no-one stands out to my mind as the obvious or original case. I might have gone for Gazza the footballer but he too is going back a few years. Links from the people concerned, and from the phenomenon of the Oxford '-er', will help to make the article easier to find. Flapdragon 10:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It started out under Gazza (disambiguation) but was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.74.26 (talk • contribs) , at 11:15, 12 May 2006

I am open to being convinced. I prefer articles to be improved rather than deleted. However, I have to say I remain unconvinced that this phenonemon in itself is notable. I did not state it is non-notable because it is common. However, because it is common it will be difficult to determine who to include. More worrying is the title. Does this phenonemon have a real title. Clearly "Hezza" is not its title, nor is "Gazza". I might add that as an Oxford graduate, I have problems with the Oxford '-er' article too. It is a real phenonemon but it is'nt very important or notable and, again, its title is not good. --Bduke 11:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't have a "real" title. In England it grew out of Gazza. Both Gazza and Hezza appear in Brewer and other books list examples. 'Zza'/ But that would be too obscure! The Oxford -er is the term used by Partridge. I am an Oxonian too. I don't understand what is meant by important or notable. It doesn't get in the way of anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.74.26 (talk • contribs) , at 15:29, 12 May 2006

I agree, though like Bduke I wish you'd sign your posts! (just add four tildes at the end). I don't see how anyone can really object to articles on phenomena mentioned by the likes of Partridge and Brewer. It's a linguistic phenomenon like any other, about which a perfectly sound and informative article can be written; if that kind of thing doesn't interest one then there are plenty of others to read or write instead. The charge of "unencyclopedic" is completely unsubstantiated. Because it is common it will be difficult to determine who to include? If there are a million people called John it doesn't hinder the normal process of determining which ones are worth mentioning. Nor incidentally do I see what being an Oxford graduate (I suppose I'd better own up to being one too) has got to do with anything. Flapdragon 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Gazza (nickname)" for a title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndean (talk • contribs) , at 17:37, 12 May 2006

That seems to me like an improvement, as long as it's properly integrated with the disambiguation article that still exists at Gazza (not all of which is nicknames). Flapdragon 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. This is an important Wikipedia criteria. See Wikipedia:Notability. We could make the case that notability was having their own artcile on Wikipedia. If so, why not just add the nickname to each article. It is what binds the nicknames together that is, in my opinion, not notable.
NPOV. The normal process for deciding inclusion has to ensure that the list is from a neutral point of view. This is difficult with what effectively is an open ended list. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Would you be happy if I added 50 Australian examples, for all of whom I could make a case of notability?
Oxford. I mentioned that I was an Oxford man to indicate that I was not an Australian (which you already knew, even if you had not looked at my user page) who was ignorant of what came out of Oxford.
Title. The title remains a problem. If you want one example to typify the subject, I think an Australian would say "Bazza". I personally do not like a title which is just a typical example. --Bduke 22:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original author has deleted everything except a note that it is a nickname of Michael Heseltine. It is better that it is a redirect to Michael Heseltine, so I have done that. That of course does not stop anyone using the material in the history for another article, or even reverting this artcile if there consensus. For now, I prefer to respect the views of the original author, even though he/she has not explained the deletion here. --Bduke 04:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I'm fascinated as a relative newcomer to W by the conversations these things generate. Had looked at Bduke's user page. Can he suggest a sentence or two about Bozza? Was aware he was not an Australian - the view expressed seemed to be "antipodean" (sorry if this seemed inadvertantly to be patronising). The prominence given over the past week to "Prezza" (as an eponym) - see Private Eye for example and Blair's comment in Parliament - says a lot. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ndean (talk • contribs) at 03:54, 13 May 2006

Bazza. Interestingly I was at a local Literary Festival only 3 hours ago listening to Barry "Bazza" Jones interviewing an academic author of a book on Australian history. The WP article tells you what is important about him. Then there is Barry Humphries aka Dame Edna Everage, and another of his creations Bazza McKenzie (that WP article does use the term "Bazza"). See also The Adventures of Barry McKenzie. All are called "Bazza" along with many many other Australians. I guess I was saying that the UK use is all relatively recent - certainly all post-The Adventures of Barry McKenzie. I suspect the useage in the UK started from that film. The useage in Australia is much older and much more widespread. If this view is antipodean, so be it. The "Home" country learns from us sometimes! This is not a couple of sentences about "Bazza". I'm not sure what you want them for, now you have removed the material. I suppose you want it for Gazza (nickname). I still think that it is an inappropriate title. Please sign your comments. --Bduke 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that all future discussion be moved to Talk:Gazza (nickname). --Bduke 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]