Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Buckinghamshire (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Propose moratorium on pagemove discussion[edit]

There is a strong consensus that no further move discussions should be held on this article for at least the next six months. Fut.Perf. 09:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I have been following this page for some time. It is apparent to me that there may be no ideal disambiguated name for this article and that the existing one, while not ideal, is acceptable. It is also apparent that an excessive amount of time and energy is being expended on RM discussions, which are unlikely to result in a consensus for change and therefore serve little purpose. I therefore propose that the article be kept at its current location and that a moratorium be placed on any further RM discussions for a minimum of six months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose because User:Born2cycle/FAQ#RM_proposal_moratoriums. In addition: Oh, please. A number of us have been preparing for a (hopefully final) RM for over week, designed especially to determine whether more acceptable (but not ideal) title can be agreed upon. But if you've been following this page as you say you have, then you know that. --В²C 23:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm literally copying and pasting this from the above discussion, but: Seems unnecessary. This is certainly the most thorough and pre-planned of the RMs we've had on this page, and will probably have the most conclusive answer (as long as half the votes aren't just "speedy close, this has happened before". After this one your plan might be logical though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I explained here why I think this giant, 10 option RM will provide a much less conclusive answer than a regular RM would. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. Good luck to anyone trying to find consensus in a 4-3-3-2-2-2-2-1-1-1 move request. Dekimasuよ! 03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As much as I agree, we may as well let B2C have his fun. This proposal may warrant resurrection as a possible solution if this does not turn out the way he wants and he refused to drop the stick, however. Resolute 23:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The only reason I have not gone forward with the RM proposal yet is because several of us are still working out the details of what the table should say. It's important there is general agreement that PROs and CONs are reasonable and fair. But we're close, I think. --В²C 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - There is something wrong here that people would devote this much time and effort to move a page from a persons full name, and argue incessantly that it's not because there is no proof. Something very wrong. If there is no moratorium, then perhaps there needs to be another remedy. This Talk page is beyond absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • This title has been controversial for over seven years. Isn't it worth devoting a week or so to finally resolve it? Sometimes that's what it takes. That's what it took at Yogurt, Taiwan, and a number of other controversial titles. --В²C 01:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - It has come down to a weirdly-unique set of circumstances that the current article title is simply the best of a handful of not-100% ideal choices, so let's just accept it and move on. It doesn't even matter if a horde of Neanderthals flooded the discussion and we wound up with a numerical preference for one of the equally Neanderthal-ish "wife/spouse of..." choices. I believe there are enough competent admins now that would squash such a thing on WP:BLP grounds. So, everyone, find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If there were an ideal name, it would have been used a long time ago. It's fine for people to debate forever on other websites, but such activity at Wikipedia is a huge time sink for other editors who believe the current name is the best available, and who do not want to be forced to repeat every argument indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a moratorium counting from User:Dekimasu's close of 21:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC). Two months (to 12 December 2014) if it is read as a no consensus close, or six months (to 12 April 2015) if Dekimasu meant that there was a consensus that there is no consensus for a move. There are no new arguments since the last close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
There was no consensus to move the page. In my opinion, it is clear that any new move proposal now will fail to gain a consensus. I don't think it's my place to make that a rider on the close of a requested move, and I respect many of the editors attempting to work things through here, but at some point we have to try to avoid making this a war of attrition. Dekimasuよ! 03:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe a six-month cooling-off period will convince some people to drop the stick. --Carnildo (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. After 9 moves, especially with all the different suggestions brought up in Move 6 (the one that resulted in "Sarah Jane Brown", if there was an alternative that a clear consensus would support, we would have found it by now. That there are so many possible choices on offer in this proposed 10th move request just goes to show that no one, even in this discussion, has any strong feelings on some title that they believe would meet with approval – all the strong feelings are against various titles. The main reason for the move away from the current title is that it is said to have a problem with it that the general consensus in the above conversation (or at least my impression of it) does not appear to consider a problem. (Certainly, if we were looking for an explicit consensus that it was a problem, we don't have that up there.)
I also think that the proposed RM would have the opposite of the intended effect of providing a conclusive answer. (I explained why in detail further above in the thread, but so no one will have to go searching through all that text up there, here it is.) I still believe that to be the case, and I wrote that before the pre-provided "pros and cons" list for each possible name that will only, as far as I can tell, provide another hook for those unhappy with whatever the outcome of this move would be to claim that we needed yet another move request. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Setting up a vote among eleven different choices is not a recipe for success, and separately, the previous RM just closed recently. Omnedon (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hells yes The endless repeating string of votes that start as soon as one is closed is becoming disruptive. A 6-month moratorium is exactly what the article needs. --Jayron32 03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

[See RM record below]

  • Note A new RM request was added a few minutes ago, after the comments above had already been made. I've removed it. When there is (currently) an 8-3 consensus not to have another requested move discussion, and you create another requested move discussion, that is disruptive. If another RM is started before this thread is resolved (1 day is probably too early to close this, though the trend is crystal clear), I'll block whoever starts it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • This just feels mean. I proposed having this RM over a week ago. Since then I've been openly preparing for it, here on this talk page, with help from others. See the section above. It was a TON of work. Many contributed to formulating the choices and the wording in the hopes of creating a proposal that will help us find a title that is acceptable to a consensus. I was hoping to launch earlier this week but wanted to make sure the table of choices was acceptable.

      It's a new kind of approach. Maybe it won't work, but I believe it will. Sometimes it takes this kind of effort to develop consensus. Why not give it a chance? I already got through half the notification listlist before I noticed you reverted the proposal. --В²C 17:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

      • Frankly, B2C, I feel it would have been reasonable of you to hold off on the RM until the moratorium issue was resolved. Pushing ahead with it was bound to be seen as disruptive. Omnedon (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
        • It is ironic that a blatant attempt to disrupt a genuine effort (that has taken a ton of time and work to prepare) to resolve a 7-year long conflict about this title refers to the disrupted effort as disruption itself. I didn't occur to me that anyone would be take it seriously. My mistake. Whatever. I can wait six months or a year and propose it then. Not sure why that's better. The idea that so many people think censorship can be a solution is very disappointing. --В²C 17:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
          • You're not being "censored". You're being asked to give it some time, by many people, for good reasons (that you may disagree with). Please do not assume bad faith of editors, but most especially in such a blanket manner. Omnedon (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm not assuming bad faith. Suppressing one from making a proposal is censorship, even if it's temporary. It's disappointing that you don't recognize that, much less that you approve of it. --В²C 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
              • I did not suppress you. I was one of many who, in various ways, asked you not to do this for various reasons. The community seems to be rejecting this RM so closely following the previous one. Now you have agreed to wait 6 months or a year. So what's the problem then? Omnedon (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
                • I have not agreed to. I've been coerced (by threat of block if I un-revert the RM) to "agree". That's censorship, and you're supporting it. --В²C 18:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • You are under no obligation to give your approval to this proposed moratorium. You will however be obliged to comply with the result, if there is a clear consensus. There is no 'censorship' involved anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • Works for me. Apparently you didn't even take heed of my last comment; so, not only did you proceed with a move request that pretty much no one but you cares about, you also posted a move request chock full of your own well-poisoning pro/con observations on each choice. You were just all-around wrong on this and it's really just time to let go. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • I didn't see that comment until now. RM proposals always contain whatever the nominator wants to put in it. That I chose to allow others to give me input is what's unusual here. You don't get to say what goes into a proposal others choose to make, or what format it should take. Who do you think you are? All that matters is whether the proposal succeeds or fails to achieve a consensus, as determined by an uninvolved closing admin. --В²C 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
                    • Who do I think I am? Well, to quote a wiseguy (literally), I'm the one telling you how it is. You don't get to set up a slanted and biased Move Request and expect everyone will adhere to your slanted, biased POV. IF we were to hold another rename discussion, it would be a fair and honest one. You whine about the 11 days of work you put into this, but during those 11 days, several editors pointed out that the BLP-violating choices shouldn't be in there, yet you included em anyways. Several editors objected to your inclusion of your own personal pro/con lists, yet you included em anyways. So where are we now? One admin proposed a 6-month moratorium which is heading towards a consensus approval; you ignored that, started RM #10 anyways, and another admin slammed the door in your face on that. You lost. Move on. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It is clear that there is no title that is going to satisfy everyone. There is nothing inherently objectionable about the current title, and accordingly leaving things as they are for six months will do no harm. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't object to having a well structured new RM as a means of obtaining a best-consensus title, but I also don't object to a cooling-off period following the last process. Six months is not terribly unreasonable under the circumstances. I agree with those who feel that this page is at the wrong title, but I don't think that it is so terribly wrong that it is injurious to keep it here for the time period contemplated. By the way, I seem to recall that during the last "Hillary Rodham Clinton" kerfuffle, we actually had Jimbo ask Hillary's people what her preference was. Although I don't think that we should be premising titles on the preferences of subjects (particularly those who have political calculations in mind), it couldn't hurt to have this data point in this case. In short, shall we ask Mrs. Brown if she has a preference, and (preference aside) if she finds the status quo to be offensive? bd2412 T 17:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 8 pagemove discussions in the past year? If this is what you think is important on Wikipedia, you're not here to create an encyclopedia. Go write content and we'll come back in another year. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No, what's important is finding a title that is acceptable to a consensus. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Supporting censorship is none of the above. --18:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This talk page, and its history, is one of the most extravagant episodes of missing-the-big-picture I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The reason: while kilobytes after kilobytes of text have been spilled on the insignificant question of the article's title, the article sat here, for years, in an awful state. It was poorly sourced, poorly written and poorly structured. An example of the skewed priorities: a week or so ago, I completely changed the article's long-standin structure in a single edit and without seeking consensus first ([1]). That was a much more radical change than a tweak to the title. No-one dissented. No-one had alternative suggestions. No-one cared. It is very interesting to compare how many edits certain people have made to this talk page with how many edits they have made to the article. There is one notable case where the count is 186–1. Seriously. Six months off is an excellent idea. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I noted above that I felt there was no harm in letting this run, even though I can't see anything other than a no-consensus result coming from so many options. But B2C's increasing combativeness argues that even he could use a six-month break from the topic so he can perhaps regain some perspective. Resolute 19:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per NY Brad comment as nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Absolutely nothing good can come of more move discussions. Nothing is broken, so there is no reason to fix it. Let it be, and stop this inordinate time-wasting. RGloucester 20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why postpone?. I help resolve title conflicts. Titles of articles with long multi-year histories of conflict pique my interest, because I know how to resolve them. By "resolved" I mean settling on a title to which nobody strongly objects, and people stop proposing it be changed. That's what I do. For some reason it causes consternation, but it works. Yogurt, Sega Genesis, Queen Victoria, Las Vegas, etc., are all examples of titles that had a long history of disputes, like this one, but were eventually resolved in a process in which I was heavily involved. This title is not resolved. Not yet. It could get resolved in the next few weeks. Or we could wait 6 months. Or a year. Or two years. But sooner or later it will get resolved. With the RM proposal several of us have taken almost 2 weeks to prepare we could get there much sooner than later. But people prefer later to sooner. Why is it so important to stop or postpone progress on developing consensus? --В²C 21:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Otherwise the "consensus" achieved will just be whoever gets bored last. ~Excesses~ (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If that's what you really believe about developing consensus through discussion, that's just sad. The vast majority who would participate in an RM would not have to invest much time or effort at all. Minutes. --В²C 21:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as peace is often more important than perfection. Dennis - 22:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • In the real world, peace is achieved by encouraging diplomacy and discussion. In the upside world of WP, muzzling discussion and proposals is seen as "peace". Weird. By the way: www.sarahjanebrown.com --В²C 23:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't care if we named the article Flippitydodah, I'm just tired of the senseless drama. And it is pretty obvious that you don't have a muzzle on. Dennis - 23:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I filed an RM[2]. It was reverted. That's what I mean by muzzling. --В²C 01:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
          • If I may: You filed an RM while it was being debated whether anyone should file an RM. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
            • The plan and development for that RM had been done in the open here on this talk page, and had been progressing for over a week. It was inappropriate to start a discussion about ending something that was already progressing. Instead of just making an RM proposal, I first sought input to make sure as many concerns were covered as possible in that RM. I don't know why people need to be so mean and nasty on WP. --В²C 01:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per the many sensible comments above. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per everything above, and the same as the same endless disruption at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. User:Born2cycle, please drop it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question There has been an ongoing plan and discussion on this talk page about an RM proposal for over a week. The notification list was created and ready to go. Development about the proposal content was progressing and almost ready to go for the last few days, but a few tweaks were still being discussed and made, so I waiting until this morning to actually formally post it. Despite that ongoing discussion, another discussion, this discussion, proposing a moratorium on RM proposals here, was started yesterday. I proceeded with the plan and posted the RM this morning. It was reverted on the grounds that there was an ongoing discussion about an RM moratorium, despite the fact that this moratorium discussion was started while there was an ongoing RM plan-discussion.

    Why is it okay to start a moratorium proposal discussion while there is an ongoing RM proposal discussion, but it's not okay to formerly post the ready RM proposal while there is an ongoing moratorium proposal discussion? --В²C 02:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    • That's a mischaracterization. Many of the comments following the closure of the previous RM were about how we don't need to discuss it again so quickly. Talking about doing an RM is one thing; but there was not an RM in progress when the discussion of the moratorium started. Whereas, there were a bunch of "supports" on that and it was pretty clear that the general view was in favor of tabling discussion on this for a while, when you went ahead and filed the RM anyway. Two entirely different situations. Omnedon (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Because you, dear fellow, need to drop the stick and walk away. RGloucester 02:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You began discussing and proposing ideas for yet another RM discussion.
    • Several questioned the wisdom of this, so they proposed a moratorium on RM discussions.
    • Many voiced support for that, yet you started an RM discussion.
    That’s my understanding of events, at least. Hope that helps. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support  Good proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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.


Requested move #10[edit]