Talk:Dickie Rock

Anglo-Irish incident

It is incredible that there is no mention of the link between the "Anglo-Irish incident" and Wikipedia, and that the Dickie Rock article continues to be mostly unsourced. The issue was this, "Anglo Irish Bank has begun an investigation after lewd additions made to the Wikipedia page of cabaret singer Dickie Rock were found to have originated from one of its computers." from http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/may/10/lewd-edits-to-dickie-rock-wikipedia-page-made-at-a/ This underscores the importance of good monitoring. And a well sourced article would have helped prevent the incident. cckkab (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's on there now. Good monitoring yes, but well sourced would not have prevented the incident. Having said that some cleanup is needed.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

I propose deleting the Wikipedia controversy. It's trivial; and it tells us nothing about the subject. Ok, he gave a sensible response when asked about the incident, but so would most people. Maproom (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Name

Please see MOS:HYPOCORISM. This is the recognised Wikipedia standard. It is utterly irrelevant whether he was always known as Dickie. That's why this is the article title. His real name, however, was Richard, and given Dickie is a recognised hypocorism of Richard there is absolutely no need to put it in the lead. Doing so is going against the MOS, which has been agreed by Wikipedia consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Please also see MOS:NICKNAME; "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism[k] of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial." - where "Dickie" (not Dick) is not a common hypocorism. Ergo, this is within policy and aligns with the MOS. The reason I'm being strident about this is because he was never known as "Richard Rock", and that name would be alien to the vast majority of his countryfolk - Alison ^talk 18:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Rather than use quotes, I've tried to encompass this by referring to his professional name. This might be a good compromise - Alison ^talk 18:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alison, this is a sensible compromise. Spleodrach (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

he was never known as "Richard Rock". And Bill Clinton is never known as William Clinton, but that doesn't mean his hypocorism is included in the first line of his article because it appears in the article title! I'm not going to argue about this further, but I really do see no reason why Rock's article should be an exception to the clearly stated MOS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:HYPOCORISM's footnote - Consider as a "common" hypocorism one that shortens in a conventionalized way - which "Dickie" does not, and is not. It does say "some" forms of non-shortened names are recognisable, but doesn't specify Dickie as one. If it was "Dick", perhaps it'd be obvious enough, but "Dickie" is nowhere near obvious nor recognisable enough for this. Alison's compromise version looks good to me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"Dick" is derived from "Richard," and "Dickie" is derived from "Dick." Hence, "Dickie" is derived from "Richard." — not immediately perhaps, but definitely and clearly. Mgushulak (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)