Talk:Sarah Jane Brown: Difference between revisions
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Maybe a multiple choice RM?: new section |
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Propose moratorium on pagemove discussion: 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. |
||
(326 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes | bot = MiszaBot | age = 3 | units = months}} |
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes | bot = MiszaBot | age = 3 | units = months}} |
||
== Suggestion by DHeyward == |
|||
I thought I would copy the following to this page since it might be of interest. The original edit was made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=607581736&oldid=607581663 here] by DHeyward. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 13:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Just an observation that reference to spouse of the Prime Minister is sometimes referred to as "Prime Ministerial Consort." It's gender neutral though it would be looked at more negatively in the U.S., it would be as appropriate for Margaret Thatcher's husband as is for Gordon Brown's wife and if that is the hook for notability it seems it's necessary for disambiguation. [[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 04:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) (copied to this page) |
|||
:There's no reason to consider any of these increasingly arcane choices when a middle name will suffice. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I do not wish to get involved with this after the attacks made against me above and the all-round lack of good faith: I shall not be taking the time to discuss the merits or non-merits of any suggested titles. I just thought I would take a minute to copy this well-intended contribution to the relevant page. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 18:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Noted, that is indeed an idea, to use the word "consort", though probably that won't fly. Yep, at this point everyone is testy and battle-weary. There could well be comments above that amount to be fully-intended personal attacks upon you, I.P. editor, or are reasonable for you to interpret as that. And I sometimes would be inclined to try to help address someone seemingly victimized by apparently unfair attacks. But as you and I are discussing elsewhere, i have little sympathy for a non-logged in editor who shows no substantial contributions to mainspace articles and who risks no reputation, who is not subject to the deeper incivility that is easily applied in wikipedia in the form of real attacks on reputation, etc. And, the simple explanation that everyone is ticked off here, suffices, so don't expect appreciation for anything. Sorry that Wikipedia is what it has become. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 21:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: AGF is not a suicide pact. Obsessing over changing the name of a biography when Jimbo says the current title is "neutral and uncontroversial" is not what good faith editors do. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I really wish you would stop misrepresenting history. Editors worked for 5 years in a various series of move requests to get (wife) *out* of the title, finally succeeding last year - indeed the winning move came a few months after another no-consensus close. So those who don't like the current title aren't the only ones 'obsessing', indeed other editors have been obsessing for many more years. Please read the previous move requests before making bogus statements again.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 08:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::If one can be said to be "obsessing" about correcting misogyny, sure. Looking at the old attempts to right this wrong, I see a lot of comments along the lines of "stuff neutrality", "her career outside the Gordon Brown connection is not notable", and so on. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 12:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Were those other titles judged to be "neutral and uncontroversial" by Jimbo? Thought not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Why are you so obsessed with what Jimbo thinks about this title? Jimbo has been on the losing side of consensus multiple times. The name SJB is neutral and perhaps uncontroversial, but massively anti-reader since no reliable sources ever use this middle name, so the user has never seen it, and thus won't ever search for it.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 00:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::And...what? Do you think readers will type "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" into the search bar? No, they'll most likely just do "Sarah Brown", land on the disambig, and then go to the one they want. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 01:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"The name SJB is neutral and perhaps uncontroversial" Agreed, and this is a good argument for the status quo until there is agreement for something else. |
|||
::::::"but massively anti-reader". Nonsense. Including the middle name inhibits no reader from finding it, given that "Sarah Brown" is not available, and on arriving, finding a middle name is unsurprising for a biography, and certainly not astonishing. |
|||
::::::"no reliable sources ever use this middle name" This is a valid point against the status quo, but requires citation of sources using another title that is available to complete the argument. |
|||
::::::"thus won't ever search for it" No decent search engine requires an exact match to the title, and given that this subject is not particularly high profile, and has a non-unique name, sending ambiguous search queries to a DAB page is good. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I really don't think it is anti-reader. Having read over some of the previous discussions, I am just sad that the name change wasn't made earlier --[[User:Drowninginlimbo|Drowninginlimbo]] ([[User talk:Drowninginlimbo|talk]]) 11:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Once again, your entire case is built on [[begging the question]]. There is no ambiguity, there is no problem finding the article. And the whole point here is that the alternatives you propose, have generally already been discussed and rejected. It is a simple fact that any proposal to move to a title based on the subject's marriage, will be rejected, for the same reason it was rejected last time and the time before that, so even to propose it is inherently disruptive. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested moves (No. 9) == |
== Requested moves (No. 9) == |
||
Line 139: | Line 114: | ||
****** If ''Sarah ''Joy'' Brown'' is the most desirable article, then ''Sarah '''Macaulay''''' should definitely not take the primary position, as ''Sarah Brown'' (actress) is primary topic according to your statement. -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.171.225|65.94.171.225]] ([[User talk:65.94.171.225|talk]]) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
****** If ''Sarah ''Joy'' Brown'' is the most desirable article, then ''Sarah '''Macaulay''''' should definitely not take the primary position, as ''Sarah Brown'' (actress) is primary topic according to your statement. -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.171.225|65.94.171.225]] ([[User talk:65.94.171.225|talk]]) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''. No indication that this Sarah Brown is the primary topic, ergo it would not be appropriate to move this article to the primary title. Current name is fine. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. No indication that this Sarah Brown is the primary topic, ergo it would not be appropriate to move this article to the primary title. Current name is fine. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' – |
*'''Oppose''' – displacing the disambig page would require agreement on primarytopic status. I don't see that. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''. Unfortunately this seems to be one of those cases where there's simply no perfect option, just various flawed alternatives, each of which has something going for it but none of which has the unanimous support of the community. That being the case, it's good to remember that Wikipedia [[WP:TITLECHANGES|discourages]] us from replacing one controversial title with another. The 2013 "Sarah Jane Brown" compromise was achieved after lengthy and thorough discussion among many interested parties and even withstood a subsequent MR, so I see that as a fairly robust result, and the one that's most likely to stably continue. (I also share the concerns that others have raised here about this proposal's significant violation of WP's primary topic guideline.) Retaining the current title is the best option under the circumstances, and preferable to flip-flopping it once more to a controversial alternative. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 13:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. Unfortunately this seems to be one of those cases where there's simply no perfect option, just various flawed alternatives, each of which has something going for it but none of which has the unanimous support of the community. That being the case, it's good to remember that Wikipedia [[WP:TITLECHANGES|discourages]] us from replacing one controversial title with another. The 2013 "Sarah Jane Brown" compromise was achieved after lengthy and thorough discussion among many interested parties and even withstood a subsequent MR, so I see that as a fairly robust result, and the one that's most likely to stably continue. (I also share the concerns that others have raised here about this proposal's significant violation of WP's primary topic guideline.) Retaining the current title is the best option under the circumstances, and preferable to flip-flopping it once more to a controversial alternative. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 13:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''. Certainly not the primary topic (and I'm British!). I don't really like the title, as she isn't known as "Sarah Jane Brown", but given the only real alternative is to use [[Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)]], the only thing she's really known for, I suppose we have to go with it. Certainly not [[Sarah Macaulay Brown]], as this suggestion comes from an assumption that everyone does things the way the Americans do. We don't. I suppose we ''could'' go with [[Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)]] or something similar, but as I doubt whether anyone knows what she does when she's not being Gordon Brown's wife that's probably not very useful. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. Certainly not the primary topic (and I'm British!). I don't really like the title, as she isn't known as "Sarah Jane Brown", but given the only real alternative is to use [[Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)]], the only thing she's really known for, I suppose we have to go with it. Certainly not [[Sarah Macaulay Brown]], as this suggestion comes from an assumption that everyone does things the way the Americans do. We don't. I suppose we ''could'' go with [[Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)]] or something similar, but as I doubt whether anyone knows what she does when she's not being Gordon Brown's wife that's probably not very useful. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
Line 148: | Line 123: | ||
== Maybe a multiple choice RM? == |
== Maybe a multiple choice RM? == |
||
{{collapse top|title=RM #10 preparations discussion - see result at [[#Requested move #10]]}} |
|||
Maybe we need a multiple choice RM, where participants choose among the current title and several others, making first and second choices? That way at least we can see if the current title is preferred over all other options? Let's use this section to discuss whether such an approach might be fruitful, and, if so, what the other options should be. If we have consensus to go forward, then I'll file a formal RM accordingly. |
Maybe we need a multiple choice RM, where participants choose among the current title and several others, making first and second choices? That way at least we can see if the current title is preferred over all other options? Let's use this section to discuss whether such an approach might be fruitful, and, if so, what the other options should be. If we have consensus to go forward, then I'll file a formal RM accordingly. |
||
<p>Feel free to add what you think would be a good choice for a title in the box below, and your comments in the Discussion subsection below that. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
<p>Feel free to add what you think would be a good choice for a title in the box below, and your comments in the Discussion subsection below that. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
<p>I just added some points to consider about each choice. If you think any are biased please improve accordingly, but the goal is to reduce decision-making by people who may not be aware of the drawbacks of some of these choices. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top| Superseded by [[#DRAFT: title choice table]] --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 22:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{quotation| |
{{quotation| |
||
<p>'''Title options'''<p> |
<p>'''Title options, and considerations'''<p> |
||
A) Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)<br> |
|||
B) Sarah Brown (born 1963)<br> |
|||
C) Sarah Brown (British celebrity)<br> |
|||
D) Sarah Brown<br> |
|||
E) Sarah Jane Brown<br> |
|||
F) Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)<br> |
|||
G) Sarah Brown (health and education advocate)<br> |
|||
H) Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)<br> |
|||
I) Sarah Brown (campaigner)<br> |
|||
J) Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister)<br> |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
* Note: placed in random order by http://www.random.org/sequences/?min=1&max=10&col=1&format=html&rnd=new. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
||
* Better idea: Ignore the article title for 2 years, come back later and see if the name / reason for notability have changed. We long ago hit the point of diminishing returns here... it just doesn't matter enough for the amount of time wasted that could be used elsewhere. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 17:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*"*(wife of Gordon Brown)" is not an option. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:*I beg your pardon for disagreeing, but if it has consensus then it is an option and the one that should be taken. You don't get to dictate that. Further, the [[WP:NCPDAB]] guideline statues that, ''"The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right."'' Here you come up against someone who, in the weight of the secondary sources, is primarily notable for being the wife of the prime minister. It's not misogynist to note that fact or that guideline. |
|||
::I'm not arguing ''for'' (wife of Gordon Brown). By and large I think SnowFire has the right idea here. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Agreed with Tarc. But more specifically, maybe you need to just drop the stick? [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
**Generally, when multiple unrelated people are seeing a problem and proposing changes, as has always been the case with this title, asking people to "drop the stick" doesn't work. And just because you think the current title "should" be "fine", does not make it so. <p> There is probably a title out there that can be supported by consensus. I don't know what it is, but it's pretty clear [[Sarah Jane Brown]] and [[Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)]] are not it (though I don't think we should prejudge and exclude either from the choices). What's the harm in finding out which of multiple titles is most favored or least objectionable? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 19:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::*Because this article is the classic edge case. Look, *none* of the titles are good. If there was a 'right' answer it would have been found by now. In a giant work like Wikipedia, you'd expect this to be true for at least a few articles; congratulations, you found it, a rare article where every possible title has a problem. There is nothing more to be gained here. Accept that the title is bad, and at least some editors believe alternate titles are even worse, and move on to some place where there's the possibility of actual notable improvement. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::**I don't know. I've seen too many situations like this where people argued essentially the same thing, but where it was actually those anti-more-discussion arguments that delayed the reaching of consensus. [[Yogurt]], [[Cork (city)]], [[Las Vegas]], [[Ivory Coast]], [[Big Ben]], [[Hollywood]], etc., etc... in all of these cases the previous titles were controversial, advocates against change argued more discussion was a waste of time, and, in spite of those efforts, when discussion was able to proceed, stable and uncontroversial titles enjoying consensus support were eventually agreed upon. <p>More to the point, I don't believe there isn't an alternative to this current title that has less objection than this one has. The problem is that the best choice - whatever it is - is probably not anyone's first choice, but at least it's not unacceptable like this one is too many. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 21:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If another option ends up in less objection, it will only be because people have finally gotten sick of [[WP:IDHT]] and [[WP:TE]]-style arguments and have thrown their hands up in exasperation. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 19:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:*(out-dent) Your other examples have no relevance whatsoever to my point. B2C, this entire process is based on a false assumption. Let's pretend there's some magic objective score for potential titles for an article from 1-10, created by some neutral party. 10 is simple & correct, maybe 8 is right but with a slightly wordy parenthetical clarification, a 5 or 6 is technically accurate but breaks some usual Wikipedia standards, a 3 is a naively valid title but out-of-date or misleading, a 1 is outright inaccurate. The point of RMs is to ''improve'' Wikipedia by getting higher scoring article titles. For ''most'' articles with a '5' title it's worth placing a RM to get it to a better title. For this article, guess what, ''all the choices are bad''. You are assuming that because there are valid complaints about "Sarah Jane Brown" and "(wife of Gordon Brown)" there must be a better title out there. We've looked. There isn't. This is just shuffling between a bunch of options that are rated 5 or worse on our magic scale and won't actually improve Wikipedia, ''regardless'' of whether consensus shifts or not. |
|||
::Also, multiple choice is a poor idea here IMO. It's entirely possible that there's some option that has plurality support that is deeply loathed by the other 60%. Borda count is also an awful voting method per others. If you want to hold some informal, editor and patience exhausting poll to find a title you think has support, ''then'' file a yes-or-no RM, that's what I'd recommend if you truly insist on continuing this (which, per above, I'd recommend against... but it seems that ship has already sailed. Sigh.) [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Somehow I missed this post, {{U|SnowFire}}. I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I suggest the current title is a 3 or a 4, and there are several on the list that are at least in the 6-7 range. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 17:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I added '''Sarah Brown (health and education advocate)''' to the list based on how she describes herself[http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/sarah-brown/]. It's a bit long, but could be worse ('''Sarah Brown (women and children's health and education advocate)'''). Probably my favorite at this point. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 06:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Added '''Sarah Brown (born 1963)''' and '''Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)''' Both are standard biographical details and although she hasn't used her maiden name in years it's less obscure than her middle name. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|talk]]) 08:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*The alternatives are of two types: (a) those that have been discussed and dismissed in the recent past; and (b) those that are bizarre. Enthusiasm for finding the perfect title is great, but it is not fair on other editors who have to occasionally check this page to see what is going on. SnowFire offered excellent advice above, and that's what should happen. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
**{{U|Johnuniq}}, good points. How about this? We continue building the list until interest dies down. Then we open an RM where everyone selects their top 3. First choice is 3 points, second choice is 2 points and third choice is 1 point. The choice that gets the most points wins. And we notify all past participants about the multi-choice RM? Do you think that would be fair? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*How about a nice and simple '''Sarah Brown (campaigner)'''? Although she is better known as Gordon Brown's wife, she is still very well known for her campaigning, as the lead of the article and her website show. It distinguishes her without being obscure and avoids the use of a name sources do not use and readers do not know. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 11:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*I am striking "wife of" and "née" from the options, per [[Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 5#Summary to date according to Guy]]. Titles judged to have serious [[WP:BLP]] concerns are not an option. We ar not going to regress here. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 19:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
**I would hope that you have enough faith in your fellow editors to know that those choices will not prevail. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
***So, you put the choices in, then berate another editor for realizing that they're not acceptable? [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 20:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
****What's acceptable is up to consensus, not any one of us. I didn't berate anyone. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*****I have reinserted the title with "née". According to the archives, it is quite popular: see archive 2, for example, where it gained a lot of support and little criticism, if any at all. There has not been proper analysis or criticism about this possibility, other than Tarc asserting that it is "archaic" and Guy including it on his subjective list. "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)" just means "Sarah Brown, formerly Sarah Macaulay". Any BLP concerns can be addressed in later discussion that involves others: we should not be removing viable and seemingly popular titles after little discussion, not matter how strongly individual editors feel. On the other hand, a wide discussion has already established that "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" will not go far, meaning there is no benefit of including it here. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*I have inserted a suggestion below for how a a multiple choice RM can be run: see what you think. More choices can be added easily. We should determine a choice of names that covers all possibilities and then open the RM. In a complex situation like this, a multiple choice RM is much more helpful. To those dubious, consider the following: if Sarah Jane Brown turns out to be the most supported, we can claim it has consensus and avoid further RMs until the situation changes, if it changes at all. If we do not do this, then there will be a run of single-choice RMs attempting many different possibilities. We can get this problem all over with, once and for all. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I just added '''Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister)'''. Because it does not say "wife" nor name her husband, it somehow seems more acceptable than ''wife of Gordon Brown'', and still reflects the characteristic that makes her most notable. {{U|Tarc}}? What do you think? Better? Good enough? We do use similar terminology on every article about every prime minister spouse. See, for example, the caption under the photo of [[Denis Thatcher]]... it says '''Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom'''. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:This seems reasonable and has not been discussed in detail before. I shall add it to the table below. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Suggestion''' - If you guys can't agree on how to format and create the proposal, perhaps do so on a userspace page.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with many of the others both above and in the "Discuss the draft" subsection below that it would be best to have a moratorium on this. However, in the event that does not happen, and in light of Tarc's striking of "wife of Gordon Brown" and the lack of objection by anyone else to that as having been decisively rejected by the community, I am going to take the liberty of striking just "Sarah Brown". There have been two attempts to move there in the past six months, including one that closed two days before this discussion about starting a new, ''tenth'' move request was started. There was also a subsection suggesting that title in the June 2013 move discussion that saw the move from "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" to "Sarah Jane Brown", and it wasn't adopted then, either. That seems like pretty decisive rejection to me. |
|||
:If we did ''need'' to move (and we don't), what's wrong with [[Sarah Brown (born 1963)]], anyway? It's bland, but at least no one can say it's improper. [[User:Egsan Bacon|Egsan Bacon]] ([[User talk:Egsan Bacon|talk]]) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Frankly, {{U|Egsan Bacon}}, I think it's likely that [[Sarah Brown (born 1963)]] might turn out to be the most acceptable choice after this process completes.<p>As to the striking out, I think it's important to leave all options in, so nobody can claim later that the resulting decision was not definitive regarding Title X because Title X was not even allowed to be considered compared to all the others. However, I think the RM proposal should mention that local consensus has rejected these titles in past discussions, so everyone is aware. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Past participants=== |
|||
Let's use this section to list all (non-IP) participants (including closers) in previous RMs so that they will be easy to access for notifications when we're ready to open an RM. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Wow, great job by IP {{U|131.111.185.66}} in compiling this list. I've moved it to a sub-page: [[Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/participant list]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Drafting the proposal statement for this (hopefully final) RM=== |
|||
{{highlight|''OPEN SECTION - Feel free to revise/improve as you wish.'' --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
The ''seven-year-long'' history of this controversial title is summarized at the top of [[Talk:Sarah Jane Brown]]. No title has achieved consensus support, yet. |
|||
<p>The current title, [[Sarah Jane Brown]] ''seems'' [[WP:NATURAL|natural]]. Jane was her middle name before she married Gordon Brown, when her name was "Sarah Jane Macaulay" (background: [http://www.newseditor.co.uk/cuttings-aug3-2000-p1.htm here]). However, she is not referred to, in ''any'' reliable source, by herself or by anyone else, as "Sarah Jane Brown". This is a policy conflict because [[WP:NATURAL]] says to ''"choose an alternative name that the subject is '''also commonly called in English''' reliable sources"'' (which is reasonable). This name clearly does not meet that criteria. More [[Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Why the current title, Sarah Jane Brown, needs to change|here]]. |
|||
<p>From the choices below, please: |
|||
* Categorize per the example below. |
|||
* Put every choice in one category (to not miss any, copy/paste the example below and rearrange choices per your considerations). |
|||
* Be judicious about what you put in the '''Unacceptable''' category; it should be ''unacceptable'' for good reason. The closing admin will determine if we have finally achieved consensus about this title, and a high '''Acceptable''' percentage for at least one title is likely to be needed to accomplish this. |
|||
* Within each category order by preference, most acceptable first. |
|||
* Explain your categorization and ordering. |
|||
<p>Example: |
|||
{{quotation| |
|||
<nowiki>* '''Acceptable/preferred''': SB, SBnM; '''Acceptable''': SBwoGB, SBhaea, SBcc. '''Unacceptable''': SBBc, SBc, SJB, SBb63, SBsoGB, SBsopm. ''Reasoning...'' --~~~~</nowiki>}} |
|||
<p>CLOSING ADMIN: Please identify one clear most acceptable/least unacceptable choice if possible, and move to (or retain) that title. If it's too close to call between two, please consider moving to (or retaining) the title that appears the most acceptable choice and suggesting a new "run-off RM" between the top two choices. <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> |
|||
====Discuss the draft==== |
|||
No. [[Borda count]] is a particularly poor [[voting method]]. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:SmokeyJoe, are you a such a strong contrarian in real life too? Anyway, we're not voting. We're trying to find consensus. [[Borda count]] is a particularly good method for that. It was designed to do that. See: [[Borda_count#As_a_consensual_method]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::See [[Borda_count#Potential_for_tactical_manipulation]]. You are clearly setting up a vote. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{small|(sarcasm on)}} Oh yeah, that's a real concern. There's so much at stake here, after all. {{small|(sarcasm off)}}<p>Seriously, what's wrong if people order their choices insincerely in order to compromise? That's key to consensus finding! For example, [[Sarah Jane (wife of Gordon Brozwn)]] might be my first choice, but knowing how many object to it and will certainly not list it at all, I'm apt to leave it off my list entirely. Isn't that a good thing? And this isn't pure Borda anyway, which involves everyone ordering all N choices. We're only asking everyone to pick their top 4 out of N. Finally, all this is just a suggestion anyway. Ultimately the closely admin will make the final judgement, however he or she deems most appropriate, as always. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ordering choices is OK, even good. Scoring choices might be better. Commenting on individual choices even better. Autoscoring by [[Borda]], bad. Suppose you like [[Sarah Jane (wife of Gordon Brown)]]. Why not [[Sarah Jane (spouse of Gordon Brown)]], [[Sarah Jane (partner of Gordon Brown)]], or [[Sarah Jane (wife of former PM Gordon Brown)]]? You should list them all. Then you get to top rank them all, amplifying their votes above all others. [[Borda]] is a terrible voting method for voting among similar candidates. Stop using "We", it is almost all just you, singularly. Limiting options? Who decides? You? An algorithm chosen not for its merits but for its ability to output a result? |
|||
::::No. Take all this to a subpage. List every viable option in its own section. Group similar options. Let people comment on every option, and read (not score) what people say. [[Meta:Voting is evil]], read it. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Or better yet; stick a cork in all of this and go find something better to do. She's Sarah Jane Brown, irregardless how many sources have ever used her middle name, even if "how many" equals zero. Any reader coming here to read up on this particular person will likely type [[Sarah Brown]] into the search box, wind up at that disambig, and then find their way here. It works, it's fine, nothing else flippin matters. Move on. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The misnomer we have in our title is being copied on the Internet[http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/sarah-jane-brown-5257.php]. It's irresponsible. If you don't care, then you are free to move on. This is actually one of those rare cases where the title is harmful. Titles are never about helping readers find the article. We can make the title be [[Pudding Cheeks]], and as long as the dab page links to it, readers will be able to find it just as easily. They'll just be mislead into thinking her name is '''Pudding Cheeks''' instead of being mislead into thinking her name is '''Sarah Jane Brown'''. But why not choose a title that is not misleading about her name? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 05:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: There is no misnomer. Jane is one of her names. She can be named by a variety of combinations of her names. Sarah Jane Brown is probably her offical name in her passport. While another title for this biography might be slightly better (I preferred others), it is not correct to call the current title a misnomer, irresponsible, harmful or misleading. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Probably? Seriously? There is no evidence she is referred to as "Sarah Jane Brown" anywhere, including her passport. But even it was on her passport, that's not a reliable secondary source - and we base our naming, including for natural disambiguation, on usage in reliable secondary sources. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 06:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Your objection to the status quo is overstated. Toned down, I might agree, much as per my statements in the archives. NB. She was referred as "Sarah Jane Macauley" in at least one reliable source. Usage in reliable sources is not absolute, titles can be descriptive, for example. Combining multiple names, each reliably sourced, is not a WP:SYNTH violation, and the name universally used for her post-marriage is not available, per the previous RM, last week, so something not supported by reliable sources must be used. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"This is actually one of those rare cases where the title is harmful." {{cn}}. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 14:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Here ya go[http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/sarah-jane-brown-5257.php]. That's a copy/paste of an earlier version of the current article here. See also below; my comment to Omnedon. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That is merely a single example of another site using the same disambiguator as we do. Unless you are going to tell me how using someone's middle name is inherently harmful, citation still needed. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
B2C, you continue to use the word "misleading", but it's not misleading. It's her full name. The frequency with which reliable sources use her full name does not change that. No one is being mislead. Nothing is being harmed. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 12:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It's misleading because it incorrectly conveys that she is commonly referred to by that name. My wife had a middle name that she used before we married, but she has not used it anywhere since and it would definitely be misleading to refer to her with it. <p>Say John and Jane Doe are married. Before they were married she was Jane Livingston Omnedon. After the marriage she went by Jane Doe; never Jane Livingston Doe. Then something made her notable. It would be misleading to title the WP article about her as '''Jane Livingston Doe''', because others would think that's her name, and maybe even start referring to her that way[http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/sarah-jane-brown-5257.php] (that's how it becomes harmful). --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I've added a bit more explanation about why the middle name is problematic and misleading into the draft RM message above. Does that help? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it's safe to say that few, if any, but you actually care. If does not matter what she is "commonly known as", not even remotely. The previous "wife of" titles were deemed problematic by the community, and ''had'' to go, no exception. It is a verifiable fact that this "Sarah Brown" has a middle name of <s>"Joy"</s> "Jane". No other (at this time) notable Sarah Brown also has that middle name. Therefore, we can use it to disambiguate from other Sarah Browns. [[WP:IAR|To hell]] with wiki-arcana of style manuals and guidelines that may harp that this isn't a ''proper'' method. This is an unusual set of circumstances, and like a wise man [[Mummy on the Orient Express|recently said]], "''sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones, but you still have to choose''". The choice has been made. Live with it. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::First of all, this Sarah Brown, before she was married, had a middle name of Jane, not Joy. It is NOT verifiable that she continued to have that middle name, or any other middle name for that matter, after she was married. The dearth of sources referencing her with that middle name after marriage strongly suggests it was dropped altogether - but certainly there is no source that verifies "Jane" is her middle name. I think that few care because few are aware of the situation. It's not like the non-use of a former middle name is something that is normally mentioned - it's implicit in the non-use.<p>Before she was married her middle name was Jane and her full name was Sarah Jane Macaulay; once she was married she dropped her middle name, adopted her husband's surname, and her full name became Sarah Brown. Her name is not, and has never been, Sarah Jane Brown, and it's misleading to suggest it is her name by using that for the title of the article about her. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 19:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, Jane, not Joy, I don't know where that came from. Not in an well frame of mind today. Again, what sources do or do not use it just doesn't matter. No one "drops" their middle name. They may cease writing or using it after a fashion, but that's irrelevant; it exists. We can use it to extract ourselves from a sticky situation. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 19:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::B2C, what data have you that supports this odd notion that she dropped her middle name when she got married? I see no evidence of this. When people get married, they may use a new surname, or the old one, or a combination of both, or the couple may even settle on a new surname for both of them to use. But dropping middle names? Data, please. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Further, it is not uncommon for a person to "go by" a name other than his/her given name. For example, some prefer their middle names, disliking their first names. But that preference does not change the person's name. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Actually, there can be a common law name change via the [[Name_change#Usage_method|usage method]], but although her name is likely to have legally joined to Sarah Brown by deed in the UK when she got married, that's not really the issue here. The bottom line is that we choose titles (not including parenthetic disambiguation, but including natural disambiguation), based on usage in reliable sources. The main reason we do that is so that our topics are recognizable from their titles and so the titles accurately reflect how that topic is commonly referred. This title utterly fails in this regard. ''Nobody'' refers to her as "Sarah Jane Brown", and yet that's our title. We have just as much justification to use "Sarah Jane Brown" as we have for "Sarah Joy Brown", or "Sarah Jack Brown" for that matter: ''absolutely none''. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Absolutely absurd. Her name is not Sarah Joy or Sarah Jack. It is Sarah Jane, and you cannot definitely state that no one calls her that. In any case, it is her name, unlike your other examples. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::There is just as much evidence that her name is "Sarah Jane" as there is that Ali's name is "Muhammad Marcellus": none. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Of course there is evidence that this is her full name. Denying it doesn't change that. What evidence do you have that she dropped her middle name when she married? [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 00:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The evidence I have that she dropped her middle name when she married is that neither she nor anybody else ever uses it. What evidence is there that "Sarah Jane Brown" is her full name? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::B2C: Sorry, but no: [[Evidence of absence|absence of evidence is not evidence of absence]]. We can certain say that most (though [http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/sarah-jane-brown-5257.php not all]) sources omit Brown's middle name, but it's frankly rather bizarre to suggest that that proves she no longer has it. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 10:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Okay,[[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]], but that goes both ways. Again, what evidence is there that "Sarah Jane Brown" is her full name?<p>And that thefamouspeople.com website is just a copy/paste of our article created by somebody in India. It's certainly not a reliable source. In fact, it's evidence of the harm this title is causing - perpetuating the misnomer of Sarah Jane Brown as her full name. After all, you fell for it. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 21:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Fell for what? Sarah Jane Macaulay was her maiden name, and she took her husband's surname. These facts are not in dispute. Your personal assumptions, however, are. Is there even one source that says she legally dropped her middle name upon marriage? I certainly can't find one, but do please correct me if I'm somehow missing it... [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 16:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*You have to admit, there's something very weird about a page for a notable figure existing at a title which, when searched on google, [https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Sarah+Jane+Brown%22&start=0 brings up 0 results for her].--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 01:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::The same would be true of many titles on Wikipedia. That changes nothing. B2C, you have no positive evidence, only speculation. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 01:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you can name one person on Wikipedia who has plenty of google results and google news results but none that come up when using the chosen title, I'll eat my hat and give you a barnstar.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 01:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::And no, including the parenthetical disambiguation would obviously not count, in case someone wants to be a smart aleck.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You referred to article titles. Article titles that have disambiguators are still article titles. So you already know that there are article titles for which a Google search would turn up very few relevant results. Thanks for acknowledging that. This article has a disambiguator in the title, since "Sarah Brown" refers to multiple notable people and thus that name is a disambiguation page. That the disambiguator is not in parentheses is irrelevant. There would be other ways of disambiguating in this case, as in others; but the most recent RM was just closed earlier this month, so it's not being moved now. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm sorry, {{U|Omnedon}}, but it's ''very'' relevant that the disambiguator is not in parentheses. Because it's not in parentheses, and not separated by a comma, it is subject to [[WP:NATURAL]], which states: ''{{highlight|If it exists}}, choose an alternative name that the subject is {{highlight|also commonly called}} in English''. Since this subject is not commonly called "Sarah Jane Brown", it does not meet the criteria. Not even close. Note we're not arguing it is merely insufficiently used to meet the "also commonly called" criteria; it's that it's NEVER used (by reliable sources, which is what matters) to call her that. Of course it matters that the disambiguator is not in parentheses! It makes a huge difference! <p>And this isn't wiki lawyering (in case anyone is wondering). The underlying idea that matters here is that titles disambiguated without parentheses are supposed to be recognizable as commonly used references to the topic. This is important because people can and do rely on WP titles to accurately reflect how topics are typically named. [[Sarah Joy Brown]], for example, is not a misleading misnomer like this title is. Her own website refers to her with (as well as without) the "Joy" middle name[http://www.sarahbrown.net/]. So do reliable sources, like TV Guide [http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/sarah-brown/194026]. But there is ''nothing'' like that supporting "Sarah Jane Brown" for this topic. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ec}} "The same would be true of many titles on Wikipedia". Not including parenthetic disambiguation and obviously contrived descriptive titles like [[Regions of Romania]]? A [[WP:NATURAL]] disambiguation with zero results for a topic that otherwise has considerable results? I don't think so. I don't recall ever seeing even one. Can you back up your claim of "many" with a few examples? I bet not. <p>The lack of results of anyone, including herself and biographers, using the middle name is not speculation. It's factual evidence supporting the claim that she dropped her middle name when she got married. Usage determines names, especially names of people, by definition. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 02:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::"Factual evidence"? That's a meaningless term. What is evidence other than factual? You have no evidence here. Lots of people almost never use their middle names, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean the names do not exist or have been "dropped". You have presented no evidence whatsoever that the name "Jane" has been dropped, but have merely speculated based on '''lack''' of evidence. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::In fact the Google search mentioned earlier does turn up [http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/sarah-jane-brown-5257.php this page] specifically about the person who is the subject of this article. Zero hits, eh? [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 05:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sorry, I should have made it clearer, but I was hoping we'd at least assume that we're talking about the types of results that at least meet the bare minimum of our verifiability standards, not editable websites that seem to base their info on our Wikipedia page. But hell, even when you make every effort [["sarah jane brown" gordon prime minister|to filter out unrelated results in your search]] it looks like everything coming up using the name is just some kind of copy or link to this entry.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 06:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Oh, but thefamouspeople.com ''is'' verifiable! The apparent sole editor/publisher/webmaster even has a Facebook page![https://www.facebook.com/thefamouspeopledotcom/info]. ;-) Seriously, if I had an hour or so I bet I could dig through the history of this article and find the exact version that was copy/pasted there. But maybe they do some tweaking so an exact duplicate may not exist. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{U|Omnedon}}, you're being a little silly aren't you? What kind of evidence would you expect to exist to support the dropping of a middle name of any person? People who drop middle names just stop using them. There is no press release. You're asking me to provide evidence that is practically impossible to exist. Besides, the main point is not that it's no longer her middle name, but that nobody uses it, that nobody refers to her as '''Sarah Jane Brown''' - so it's misleading for us to use that as [[WP:NATURAL|natural disambiguation]], and harmful because dumb sites like thefamouspeople.com copy us, thus spreading the misinformation. But I can understand why you would want to divert from those main points and focus on the irrelevant, esoteric and pointless semantic question of whether "Jane" remains her middle name (whatever that means) given that she and everybody else stopped using it to refer to her after getting married. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Since you admit there is unlikely to be any evidence for your stupid claim, quit making your stupid claim. The most recent RM closed just recently, but as usual, you refuse to accept the result. And you, of all people, accuse SmokeyJoe of being a contrarian? LOL! [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 16:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::So you continue to focus on the irrelevant? Really? The result of the last and all previous RM discussions was "no consensus". I accept that, and I'm trying to address it, and hopefully resolve it. Finally. What is ''your'' purpose here? You're certainly not leading or following. What does that leave? {{small|hint: ''"Lead, follow, or get out of the way."''}} --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes, another of your tactics -- when you don't like what people are saying, you invite them to leave. You're not going to resolve anything by making spurious claims with no evidence. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 17:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I've explained repeatedly the "spurious claim" that you're supposedly so concerned about is not key to this. It is no longer in the draft RM message. Again, it's irrelevant. But you refuse to let it go. Again, what is one to discern about your purpose here, except to be disruptive? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::At this moment, to call you on your nonsense. Generally, to improve the encyclopedia. Your continued bickering about this subject is what's disruptive. Let it go. Walk away. Give it some time. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 18:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I'm baffled by your favoring "walk away", and especially why you're so adamant about it (why don't ''you'' walk away?).<p>The current state about this title is "no consensus". We know how to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion|reach consensus through discussion]]. Last I checked, we didn't have policy about "reaching discussion by walking away". Efforts like this have worked in the past. Why are you so opposed to it here? Because it's my idea? Are you really that petty? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 19:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::No, the state of this title is not "no consensus". The result of the move was "no consensus". How many times must this be spelled out for you? There was no consensus to move, so we did not move. Now, give it some time before rehashing the whole thing ''yet again'' with another RM. ''That'' is what I mean by "walk away". You're not helping anything here. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 22:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
It might be worth noting that British names are considered slightly differently to those of many other countries. There is no real concept of "legally changing a name": British subjects do not require any kind of legal document or permission in order to change their name, for example. Simply adopting a new name and renouncing a former name is sufficient (some further details [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change#United_Kingdom here]). [http://www.newseditor.co.uk/cuttings-aug3-2000-p1.htm This] is a very interesting article. See this extract concerning their marriage: |
|||
:::Arrangements remained a tightly guarded secret. But under Scottish law, the couple had to publish wedding details in the nearest register office to where the ceremony would take place. |
|||
:::Details appeared on a single sheet of paper pinned to the front window of the register office. |
|||
:::Under Section 4(2) of the Marriage Scotland Act 1977, the couple were obliged to allow the publication of their full names - James Gordon Brown and Sarah Jane Macaulay - along with the date of the wedding, August 3. |
|||
Note that the few sources using "Jane" given before were published at the time of her marriage. It really does seem as if Brown's middle name, Jane, is something that is not used publicly. It emphasises even further the unsuitability of the current title when more natural and helpful disambiguators exist. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:*Born2cycle is repeatedly overloading this proposed notification with verbose detail not appropriate to a notification. Arguments, and opinions as to applicability of policy to a particular question, belong in a nomination statement or a !vote, not in a spammed notification to many past participants. If this message is to be advertised, not that it will represent the actions of the notifier, and does not reflect a consensus of participants here. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:**SmokeyJoe, the draft proposal notification that will go to all past participants, is on the sub page. See [[Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Past_RM_participant_list#Message_Draft]]. This is the the draft RM proposal statement. I thought that was obvious from the wording (e.g., "The top of this talk page summarizes..."). I've changed the section heading to be more clear. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:***Yes, it was not obvious enough for all of us. That's a better section heading. Thank you. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
====Status: list of title options appears close if not final; RM message still in progress==== |
|||
Looks like updates to the list of options have petered out, but editing of the draft RM message remains active. As soon as that settles down I'll file the RM. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
====Leave struck out options out?==== |
|||
I know there is strong opposition to certain previously considered and rejected titles, most notably [[Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)]] and [[Sarah Brown]]. Those who strongly oppose them want them to not be offered on the list of titles to be considered, on the reasonable grounds that they have been previously rejected. But I wonder if that's a really good idea. <p>What we're trying to accomplish with this effort is to find a solution that is broadly supported. I'm concerned that leaving these off the list will allow the final decision here to be questioned as not being a comprehensive process. After all, consensus can change, and in this kind of process it's theoretically possible for a previously rejected option to be found to be most acceptable. In this particular case I think it's practically impossible for that to happen (I, for one, will list "wife of Gordon Brown" as ''un''acceptable because of others' BLP concerns even though I don't agree with them), but I don't want to leave room for others to reasonably question whatever result we end up here. I'm concerned that if we leave these off, that's exactly what others may argue in the future, and we won't have settled this after all. On the other hand, if they're on the list, we'll have evidence that they were soundly rejected by consensus in this consideration of all titles. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Put all the suggested names on the list. Anyone who has a concern will put the title in the unacceptable section of their vote and explain why. It makes sense to consider consensus between all titles and sort the matter out fully than to leave any possibility for future conflict. Adding two additional names will not be problematic when a survey is taking place anyway. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 18:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Instead of an RM, why not list it as an RFC and place a note at the RM page? Doing so will keep it open for a month to gain more exposure and the question can be worded more neutrally ("What is the best name for the article out of these?" instead of "Do you support a move from this title to any of the following titles?") This approach was used in RM 6 and worked well. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 18:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, to avoid bias due to the order of titles used in the poll, I suggest using a [http://www.random.org/sequences/ random number generator] to determine the order of titles. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 18:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Update: I have just done this on the list of current names. The random sequence given was 8, 7, 3, 2, 1, 4, 6, 5, 9, 10. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 19:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Okay, thanks. I'll go with that random order.<p>Isn't an RM just a specialized RfC? Since all previous participants will be notified, we shouldn't need more than a week. But it wouldn't hurt to make it an official RfC as well. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I do not know. In hindsight, putting it as an RFC is problematic because of the introduction: it has to be short and neutral for an RFC, but the one above is not (it is discussing the problems with the current title). I have updated the draft message to explain the problem is not just a title that could be incorrect, but one that is not used in reliable sources and is unfamiliar and confusing. I have unearthed the origin of "Jane", too, which is interesting. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you are happy with my changes, then we have all had a chance to make changes to it, so I suggest filing the RM. :) [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 19:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:The "wife of" is not an option, it does not matter how many people actually "vote" for it, this article will never return to that; a local consensus does not override site-wide [[WP:BLP]] policy, a point I'm pretty sure that {{user link|JzG}}, aka Guy, made the last time around. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 19:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I cannot imagine consensus changing so strongly as to favour that. It is better to have it there and for it to be strongly outvoted than to have it conspicuously missing. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::A policy-violating option can only be "conspicuously missing" if one is acting in bad faith. Is there any reason I should not take your insistence on including it as being mysogynistic trolling? [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 20:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::That the "Wife of" title would violate policy is at best an opinion held by many, but it is not a fact. It would therefore be subject to questioning in the future. Leaving it in the list of "options" will definitely put the nail in that issue; leaving it out will allow it to fester. Is that what you want? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Even though many disagree with it, there are still many that prefer it, as previous discussions show. Not enough to make it a viable title, however. If it is omitted from the list of possible titles, then these users will suggest it anyway. It should be included on the list and outvoted: that will support your view far more than removing it altogether. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Given the nail has already been put in that issue, my opinion, B2C, is that this issue seems likely to fester until a pair of topic bans are handed out. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 20:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Those who object to it the "wife of" title most strongly are the only ones discussing it. The outcome of this process, if all titles are left in, is likely to be a good title to which nobody strongly objects, and will be strongly supported here on out. The rare occasional efforts to suggest changing this title to anything else, including the "wife of" title, will be shot down immediately. That's how it goes in every other case that has done this, AFAIK. But if it's not on the list in this process, the ability to curtail such efforts will be more difficult and time consuming. Why leave us open to that? We want a strong definitive decision here; that's the goal. We currently don't have that, not even with "wife of". --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tq|After all, consensus can change}}. After five days? Because that's how long ago the last move request closed. Consensus didn't support "Sarah Brown" ''earlier this week'' when it was only one of two options. How could it gain consensus now as one of ten? [[User:Egsan Bacon|Egsan Bacon]] ([[User talk:Egsan Bacon|talk]]) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::That was in reference to the "wife of" option primarily. But we want as final a decision here as possible. If we omit options, for any reason, the finality of the decision weakens. Two years from now all that will matter is whether that option was available when everyone in the relatively large sample of the community we anticipate made their decision, not that it was not available because it had been rejected a few weeks earlier by some other smaller group of participants. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 22:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Then we differ on that point, because I'm anticipating that the "finality" of the decision will be weak no matter what. Indeed, the more options you offer, the weaker it will be. If there was an option that enjoyed clear consensus, it would have been discovered by now. Any discussion based on ranking choices brings points into the matter, and any result that's at all close, the supporters of the second or third choices would likely want to see how they'd do one on one with the "winner", and the closeness of the discussion would support the idea that the consensus wasn't all that solid. Or perhaps they might take issue with whatever point system was used, and suggest that another one would be better, and would show what consensus ''really'' is. Theoretically, it might not be close, but since that would require the clear consensus that has been so elusive this far, so I think we can leave that to the realm of the theoretical. We could even run the same ten suggestions in a discussion every year and even wind up with a different result depending on who was participating! True, we might learn that certain options are very unpopular, but ''we already know that''. We don't really need to run more trials to generate more "proof" because someone might possibly object that there hasn't been enough proof already. |
|||
:::And if you don't use points of some kind, then you have people giving their opinions of ten different possibilities, and then some admin (who I feel bad for already, and the RM doesn't even exist yet) is going to have to wade through all that and try to "feel out" (because they can't actually count the !votes, because that'd be using points) and try to determine which of all the options have the most support and the best arguments and go with that. There's no way ''that'' won't be controversial. Indeed, that's basically what happened in Move 6 (the one that moved to "Sarah Jane Brown"), and it clearly ''hasn't'' proved uncontroversial, and it ''hasn't'' stopped move requests from being generated because, hey, here we are. |
|||
:::Either way, since you have ten options instead of two options, you risk splitting the vote so much you wind up with something that only about 15% of participants really favor and only 40% generally support, which is exactly the sort of thing that leads to disputes over what consensus is, and if there might not be something amongst the other nine (or something else still!) that would be better, which is where we are right now. |
|||
:::You say above that it's like [[Yogurt]] or [[Ivory Coast]] or [[Las Vegas]] or [[Big Ben]], but it isn't like those at all. Those were binary choices ("h" or no "h", English or French, include state or don't, obscure but correct or common but incorrect). This is not; it never has been. People have offered many suggestions. You want to offer ten possibilities. |
|||
:::For a proposal that's intended to make things clearer, it can only make things murkier (or, at best, leave us where we are now). I really do wish you'd reconsider. [[User:Egsan Bacon|Egsan Bacon]] ([[User talk:Egsan Bacon|talk]]) 23:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Good points. Well, if this approach does not result in a clear obvious preference, then the closing admin is certainly free to identify the top two choices among all of these, and then we can have a run-off RM. That's what worked at [[Talk:Sega Genesis]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
====Include drawback considerations?==== |
|||
I added some considerations under each of the choices[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown&oldid=629918065#Maybe_a_multiple_choice_RM.3F], but it has been reverted (twice) for being biased and not objective, but no specific problems were identified. Perhaps (it's hard to see one's own biases), but the intent is to inform participants of previously identified primary drawbacks (if applicable) for each, fairly. I won't dispute that my summaries were imperfect, but I still think it's a good idea. For example, in the past others did not realize the misogynistic drawbacks of "wife of ...". What is the harm in identifying this problem with that choice? With that brought to their attention, they can make more informed choices, it seems to me. If there are specific problems of bias, why not just fix them? Let's fairly summarize the primary drawbacks of each choice, so everybody knows. Okay? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Aside from giving your personal opinions primacy, you certainly were not listing drawbacks. Well, you did for the options you personally disfavour, but used positive language for those you are more supportive of. If you want people to make a decision, let them make a decision. Don't poison the well in your quest to add another notch to your user page. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 00:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you for noticing the notches. Those are not my personal opinions - they are consensus opinions as best as I can understand them. Again, why not fix the issues you see instead of throwing out the whole thing? You didn't address anything I said, and did not explain how providing information as objectively as reasonably possible (think "voter pamphlet") is "poisoning the well". --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Drawback considerations make sense, especially to users who are not entirely aware of the intracacies of the situation (for example, some users really might not know what Sarah Brown is most famous for or whether Jane is used as part of her name or not). It is incredibly difficult, however, to make these neutral. If they are to be done, I suggest a (very brief) bullet point giving the general advantage and a (very brief) bullet point giving the general disadvantage. For example, |
|||
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) |
|||
*Disambiguates with most common description |
|||
*Might be taken as sexist |
|||
Sarah Brown |
|||
*Uses standard name for subject |
|||
*Not primary topic |
|||
Sarah Jane Brown |
|||
*Cannot think of a positive, sorry. Disambiguates from other articles? |
|||
*Jane not used by reliable sources and not recognisable to readers |
|||
Sarah Brown (campaigner) |
|||
*Disambiguates with common description |
|||
*But not most common description |
|||
We should all be able to agree on a quick advantage and disadvantage for each. Just keep them short enough not to be too leading. The alternative might well be having some editors vote on an issue they have not looked at in enough detail, unfortunately. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::This whole thing is ill-advised, as the most recent RM was just closed -- but hypothetically: you cannot guarantee who will make selections or what they will know or not know. And you cannot tell them what you think they should know without it being biased. And building a truly neutral list is problematic, and the attempt involves yet more re-hashing, and there will be disagreement on whether or not any particular advantage or disadvantage is indeed an advantage or disadvantage. If you want people to select from a list, give them the list. Period. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 01:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Omnedon}} and {{U|Resolute}}, do you think we should not have voter pamphlets for elections? If you're okay with voter pamphlets, why the objection to this? Conceptually, it's the same. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Did you even read what I just wrote? That give the reasons for my objection. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 01:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::As have I. Also, if you think this is like an election, then you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia ''is''. I do not think that is the case. What you are doing, however, is pretty much undermining your own case as you have to build a consensus for a different - and policy compliant - disambiguator if you want change. All you are shaping up for here is a no consensus (at best) and no change. And since we both know that you won't drop the stick at that point, another round of wasted time. You and the IP are the only two pushing for this. So just pick an alternate you think is best between yourselves - that is policy compliant - and make your case. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 02:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::On further reflection, recall that RMs are supposed to be persuasive. [[WP:RM]] includes the sentence 'Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral.' If anything, B2C has the opportunity to be even more leading, if he or she so wishes. I suggest, instead of doing that, to provide generally held views for each title to add a bit of context, similar to the examples I suggested above. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 12:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::<P>Yes, {{U|Omnedon}}, I read what you wrote. Your answer is what caused me to ask what you thought about voter pamphlets. And, no {{U|Resolute}}, this is not exactly like an election. But that does not mean the analogy and question are inappropriate or irrelevant. There are similarities. No analogy is perfect. Whether an analogy is apt depends on the situation and how it is being compared. In this case I'm comparing a WP RM discussion to an election, both of which are processes intended to elicit the positions of people on certain issues, as fairly as reasonably possible, and without undue influence. So it makes sense to ask why it's reasonable to summarize the pros and cons of the issues in an election (via a voter pamphlet), but not in an RM discussion (via a short list). Of course there are differences - but how do those difference explain why a voter pamphlet is appropriate but a summary of pros/cons here is not? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:"Sarah Brown" has been rejected multiple times. The inclusion of this choice right after the closure of the last move request that explicitly used that option failed, is clearly wrong. If you want that option, wait for next year's October (2015 October), as it has failed multiple times this year, so this is clearly not an available choice. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.70.35.44|67.70.35.44]] ([[User talk:67.70.35.44|talk]]) 02:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=== A couple of questions === |
|||
A couple of questions addressed to the small number of people who are ''still'' obsessed with moving this article despite the evident lack of consensus for every single alternative thus offered: |
|||
# When were you thinking of providing a policy-based rationale for moving it at all, rather than one based on devotion to foolish consistency? |
|||
# When were you thinking of notifying the large number of people who have already voiced an opinion, albeit one you don't like, or were you hoping to slip one past the goalie while he was looking the other way? |
|||
For the record: my view is still firmly that there is no problem to fix, and every suggestion made thus far introduces problems that would need fixing, and would best be fixed by moving it right back to the current title. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 06:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:#Last I checked, [[WP:NATURAL]] was part of [[WP:AT]], which is policy. The current title clearly contradicts that policy, and this has been repeatedly explained. On the other hand, though adherence to the consistency [[WP:CRITERIA|criterion]] is also a good policy-based reason to change a title, that is not a factor here. |
|||
:#The list of past participants is prepared at [[Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Past_RM_participant_list#Combined_list]]. They will be notified once the formal RM is created, probably early next week. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:In fairness to B2C, he was always clear that everyone who particiapated in a previous RM would be contacted when they are done... brainstorming. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 02:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===What about putting each selection in one of three categories?=== |
|||
It occurs to me that asking participants to order all of the choices might lead to unintended distinctions. To address this, what about asking participants to place each choice in one of three categories. Sample instructions: |
|||
{{quotation|Assign each choice in the box to one of these three categories: ''Acceptable/Preferred'', ''Acceptable/Satisfactory'', and ''Unacceptable''. For all acceptable choices, explain why it's preferred or merely satisfactory. If others claim that choice violates policy, explain why you disagree or choose to invoke [[WP:IAR]]. For any Unacceptable choice, explain how it violates policy. }} |
|||
I think this should give us, and the closer, a clearer view of what is going on. What do you think? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: For example, I'm probably going to respond something like this: |
|||
{{quotation| |
|||
::'''Acceptable/Preferred''' |
|||
::*Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister) |
|||
::**This disambiguator reflects what she is primarily notable for; no issues with policy. |
|||
::'''Acceptable/Satisfactory''' |
|||
::*Sarah Brown (née Macaulay), Sarah Brown (born 1963), Sarah Brown (charity campaigner), Sarah Brown (campaigner), Sarah Brown (health and education advocate) |
|||
::**All these are okay but inferior to ''spouse of Prime Minister'' because they distinguish her from the other uses of "Sarah Brown", but don't reflect what she is notable for. |
|||
::'''Unacceptable''' |
|||
::*Sarah Brown |
|||
::**Not [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] |
|||
::*Sarah Brown (British celebrity) |
|||
::**Confusing disambiguator - she's not known as a "celebrity" |
|||
::*Sarah Jane Brown |
|||
::**Contrary to policy ([[WP:NATURAL]]) |
|||
::*Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) |
|||
::**viewed as sexist by many |
|||
::--[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 03:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
::My specific choices and reasoning aside, does this look like a reasonable way to express our views? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 03:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Multiply the size of that box by ''n'' responses. All you would create with this format is a huge mess for any closing admin to wade through. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 03:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::It might be better to create a table with four columns: "user", "acceptable/preferred", "acceptable/satisfactory" and "unacceptable" just for entering the titles. Reasons could then be given in a discussion thread below. That will keep all of the votes together to help the closer. Splitting acceptable into two categories is a good idea. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 12:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:''Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister)'' seems bad, since (1) "Prime Minister" is capitalized, (2) she's not the wife of any current prime minister (3) does not indicate what prime minister this is about, "Sarah Brown" isn't the title given to wives of prime ministers (unlike FLOTUS). [[Sarah Brown (spouse of one UK prime minister)]] or [[Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minster Gordon Brown)]] would fix those issues -- [[Special:Contributions/67.70.35.44|67.70.35.44]] ([[User talk:67.70.35.44|talk]]) 19:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Remember, the purpose of parenthetic disambiguation is not to fully describe the topic, but to distinguish it from other uses of the same name. Since ''spouse of prime minister'' (yes, no caps) can only apply to one Sarah Brown, that should be sufficient. I think the others you suggest are overly precise in comparison. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Why the current title, [[Sarah Jane Brown]], needs to change=== |
|||
''People keep asking this question and apparently missing my answer, so I'm creating this section to keep from having to repeat it any more.'' |
|||
The disambiguator in this title, "Jane", is not in parentheses. Because it's not in parentheses, and not separated by a comma, [[WP:NATURAL]] applies to this title, which states: ''If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English''. Since this person is not commonly called "Sarah Jane Brown", it does not meet this criteria. Not even close. Note we're not arguing it is merely insufficiently used to meet the "also commonly called" criteria; it's that it's NEVER used (by reliable sources, which is what matters) to call her that.<p>And this isn't wiki lawyering (in case anyone is wondering) or [[WP:JDLI]] rationalizing just to oppose an unliked title. The reason this title is unacceptable and so must change is that titles disambiguated without parentheses are supposed to be recognizable as commonly used references to the topic. This is important because people can and do rely on WP titles to accurately reflect how topics are typically named. [[Sarah Joy Brown]], for example, is not a misleading misnomer like this title is. [http://www.sarahbrown.net/ Her own website] refers to her with (as well as without) the "Joy" middle name. So do reliable sources, like TV Guide [http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/sarah-brown/194026]. So when people go to that article and see the title '''Sarah Joy Brown''', they are not being mislead, because that is her full name. <p>But there is ''nothing'' like that supporting "Sarah Jane Brown" for this topic. Nothing. When people go this article and see the title '''Sarah Jane Brown''', they are misled into thinking this is her full name. [http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/sarah-jane-brown-5257.php At least one website] is already perpetuating the misnomer, and it's our fault. We need to fix it; the sooner the better. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Above, you claimed stridently that this issue was not key. Clearly that was not true. You continue to make this spurious claim that she dropped her middle name when she got married. There is no evidence of this. There is no "misnomer" here, and no "misleading" is taking place, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the site you mention, which shows her full name as Sarah Jane Brown, got that information from this article. Of course there is support for this being her name: her name was Sarah Jane Macauley before she got married, and there is no reason to make the '''assumption''' (for that's what you are doing) that she "dropped" her middle name. Please stop making unsupportable statements as if they are absolute facts. They are not. They are your opinions, and highly questionable ones at that. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 13:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It doesn't matter. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: Yes, it doesn't matter whether the Jane middle name was dropped or retained when she married. What matters is that it's not used by her nor any reliable source. Not even one. It also matters that our using it is therefore misleading and harmful, because it wrongly conveys that she is known as "Sarah Jane Brown". She isn't. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 06:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::It is not misleading or harmful. It *is* her middle name. No *harm* comes from people knowing ahead of the info box what her middle name is. |
|||
:::If given the choice of [[Sarah Jane Brown]] & [[Sarah Brown (middle name Jane)]], do I understand correctly that you would choose the second? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, we should prefer the latter, though they are equally misleading. We have no more basis to say her middle name is "Jane" than to say it is "Joe". There are NO reliable sources supporting the Jane-IS-her-middle-name position. None. Zero. Zilch. However, while they both titles claim (implicitly or explicitly) that her middle name is "Jane", only the first one who suggests she is commonly known as "Sarah Jane Brown" - at least the second one does not do that, so it should be preferred. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: You stated your opinion (yet again). It is your opinion, not fact. I disagree with your opinion. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds: we have no need to allow the hobgoblin of foolish consistency to override perfectly practical common sense. The title is 100% accurate and 100% neutral, people find their way here form the dab without any difficulty whatsoever, there is no problem to fix as far as the reader is concerned. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::You seem to have facts and opinions conflated. The following are facts (not opinion): |
|||
::#Before marrying Gordon Brown her middle name was "Jane" and her full name was "Sarah Jane Macaulay". |
|||
::#There are no reliable sources supporting the claim that she retained the middle name "Jane" after marrying Gordon Brown. |
|||
::#There are no reliable sources that refer to her, or have ever referred to her, as "Sarah Jane Brown". |
|||
::#Despite the absence of any reliable sources supporting this, the current title never-the-less suggests her full name is "Sarah Jane Brown". |
|||
::The following are opinions totally unsupported by reliable sources: |
|||
::#She retained her middle name after marrying Gordon Brown. |
|||
::#Her full name is "Sarah Jane Brown" |
|||
::--[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{facepalm}} People do not, in the normal course of affairs, legally drop their middle name upon getting married. That isn't to say that it is has ''never'' happened , but if/when it ''does'' happen then it'd be a highly unusual circumstance. The burden of proof is upon ''you'' to prove the claim that "Jane" is no longer her middle name. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Again, whether "Jane" is no longer legally her middle name is irrelevant to the indisputable ''fact'' that not one single reliable source has ''ever'' referred to her as "Sarah Jane Brown", let alone sufficient reliable sources to warrant using this title per [[WP:NATURAL]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It is quite relevant. If it is her legal name, whether commonly in use or not, it is a good a choice as any to disambiguate. From the policy page you cite, pay attention to "''Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary...more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.''". This certainly qualifies as a situation in need foe that latitude. You're almost to [[WP:TE|the point]] here where someone will ask for you to be topic-banned so we can all get some peace. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 20:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::B2C: I'm afraid you still seem not to grasp the difference between [[evidence of absence|absence of evidence and evidence of absence]]: that a person may not be referred to using their middle name is not an indicator that that person no longer possesses a middle name. Sarah Jane Macaulay took Gordon Brown's surname; that's not in dispute. I find no source saying that she also formally dropped her middle name. '''''Do you have a source saying she did?''''' If you have a source, please share it. Otherwise your insistence on pursuing this rather bizarre idea is simply source-less speculation that's doing nothing but pointlessly bloating your already massive wall of text. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 18:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{U|Huwmanbeing}}, please pay closer attention. IF my argument was based on the premise that "Jane" is not her middle name, then you would have a point. I would need to produce evidence that "Jane" was not her middle name (a reliable source saying so), and citing absence of any evidence that it is her middle name would not be evidence that it's not her middle name. Of course. I hope it's now clear to you that not only do I understand the difference between [[evidence of absence|absence of evidence and evidence of absence]], but that I'm not even claiming "Jane" is not her middle name. Anything that even suggested that has been gone from the draft proposal since last week, and has never been part of this sub-section. Please stop with the straw man argument.<p>The issue is not whether "Jane" is her middle name, but whether she is sufficiently commonly referred to as "Sarah Jane Brown" for us to use that as our title per [[WP:NATURAL]]. The burden of proof regarding whether "Sarah Jane Brown" ''"is an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"'', as [[WP:NATURAL]] (part of [[WP:AT]] ''policy'') requires, is on those who support this title, and that burden has not been met; not even close. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::B2C: I'm doing my best to keep up with your shifting positions. You claimed above, "once she was married she dropped her middle name, adopted her husband's surname, and her full name became Sarah Brown. Her name is not, and has never been, Sarah Jane Brown."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jane_Brown&diff=629751185&oldid=629739084] If you now say you no longer hold that view, then on that point we're cool. |
|||
:::::As for [[WP:AT]], that policy [[WP:CRITERIA|explicitly sets]] naturalness as a goal rather than a rule, and says that the choice of title in unclear situations like these should be established through discussion — and indeed the current title was. |
|||
:::::As for sources: I don't see anyone arguing specifically that RS ''do'' include the middle name with great frequency, so to insist on support for a claim that others aren't even making is disingenuous. Sarah Jane Brown (the subject's name, as we agree) simply emerged as a reasonable solution to a unique set of circumstances in which there was considerable disagreement over various disambiguators... and I don't see much evidence that that's changed in the relatively brief time since the previous discussions. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[U|Huwmanbeing]], my position has not shifted. When I wrote "she dropped her middle name" ''a week ago'' elsewhere (why are you addressing in this section words that have been written elsewhere rather than words written in ''this'' section? Such disjointed discussions are confusing.), I meant she no longer used it. That is, in public information in which she specifies her name she does not include her middle name - thus, "she dropped her middle name". You may quibble about whether "she dropped her middle name" clearly means "she does not use her middle name in publicly available information", but that would be arguing semantics. I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that. What you can't deny is that she does not use her middle name in publicly available information, which was the point there, and a relatively minor one at that. The much more important point is that no reliable sources refer to her as '''Sarah Jane Brown'''.<p>You are also confusing the general ''naturalness'' [[WP:CRITERIA]] in [[WP:AT#Deciding on an article title]] with the specific instructions about [[WP:NATURAL|natural disambiguation]] described under [[WP:AT#Disambiguation]]. No one disputes that if not for the other uses, the title of this article would and should be [[Sarah Brown]]. That's as far as [[WP:CRITERIA]] (including ''naturalness'') takes us. Because of the ambiguity, we need further guidance, which is provided at [[WP:AT#Disambiguation]], which includes guidance about how to use [[WP:NATURAL]] disambiguation. Have you read it?<p>Finally, surely you understand that the current title is a textbook example of [[WP:NATURAL]] disambiguation (as opposed to parenthetic or comma-separated disambiguation). It is [[WP:NATURAL]] that requires such titles reflect common usage, not me. But I explained this in the opening post to this section. Did you read ''that''? I'm pointing out that RS do not use the middle name because [[WP:NATURAL]] requires it (and thus this title is contrary to policy), not because others are arguing RS do use the middle name. Do you really not understand that, or are you playing dumb? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: I agree with B2C that this is not the title reliable sources use to refer to her, so I would support a different title for the article. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: By the way, while there is no requirement for parenthetic disambiguation to be supported by usage in reliable sources (like there is for [[WP:NATURAL]] disambiguation), even [[Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)]] has more support in reliable sources[https://www.google.com/search?q=Sarah+Brown+(n%C3%A9e+Macaulay)&oq=Sarah+Brown+(n%C3%A9e+Macaulay)&aqs=chrome..69i57.815j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Sarah+Brown+(n%C3%A9e+Macaulay)%22&tbm=bks] [http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp129627/sarah-brown-nee-macaulay] [http://www.prweek.com/article/140471/profile-julia-hobsbawm-hobsbawm-media-+-marketing-comms---champion-networker-goes-alone-hmc-macaulay-media-julia-hobsbawm-relaunches-own-agency] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334501/If-its-a-girl-will-the-Browns-call-her-Prudence.html] than does [[Sarah Jane Brown]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 21:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: While I agree that [[Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)]] is a better title for this biography (more recognizable, contains the "Macauley" by which she was for some time primarily known, uses all three names frequently used to identify her), it is hard to get over someone repeatedly overstating "need"s for change, and generally [[Wikipedia:Bludgeon|bludgeoning]] the discussion. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks for not posting a straw man argument. It's refreshing! --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===DRAFT: title choice table=== |
|||
{{highlight|Feel free to improve this table. The goal is to make it informative and objective.}} This will be part of the RM proposal. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 22:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|+ What shall the title of this article be? |
|||
! scope="col" | Choice |
|||
! scope="col" width="275" | Title candidate |
|||
! scope="col" | PROS |
|||
! scope="col" | CONS |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SJB |
|||
| Sarah Jane Brown |
|||
| "Jane" is her middle name. |
|||
| Reliable sources do not refer to her as "Sarah Jane Brown" so it's not [[WP:NATURAL]] disambiguation in this case. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SB |
|||
| Sarah Brown |
|||
| It's her name as used in publications. |
|||
| [[Sarah Joy Brown|Actress Sarah Brown]] makes this one not [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBb63 |
|||
| Sarah Brown (born 1963) |
|||
| A simple and non-controversially true disambiguator. |
|||
| Rather dry. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBnM |
|||
| Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) |
|||
| Referred to as this in some sources. Older sources may reference "[[Sarah Macaulay]]" |
|||
| "Obscure and almost Victorian". <br /> |
|||
A bit POV in semi-reimposing the maiden name upon a woman who has chosen not to use it. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBBc |
|||
| Sarah Brown (British celebrity) |
|||
| Alternative disambiguator |
|||
| Not known as a "celebrity" |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBhaea |
|||
| Sarah Brown (health and education advocate) |
|||
| Alternative disambiguator |
|||
| Not best known for this; long |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBcc |
|||
| Sarah Brown (charity campaigner) |
|||
| Alternative disambiguator |
|||
| Not best known for this |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBc |
|||
| Sarah Brown (campaigner) |
|||
| Alternative disambiguator, concise |
|||
| Not best known for this, unclear |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBwoGB |
|||
| Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) |
|||
| Reflects why she is notable. |
|||
| Many find this sexist. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBsopm |
|||
| Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister) |
|||
| Reflects why she is notable. Consistent with [[Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#Living spouses of Prime Ministers]] where she is listed. |
|||
| Many find this sexist. Potentially ambiguous. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" | SBsoGB |
|||
| Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown) |
|||
| Reflects why she is notable |
|||
| Many find this sexist. |
|||
|} |
|||
====Comments about table==== |
|||
*Delete the first column. Redundant to second, requires study to understand the abbreviations. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*:*I second that. An abbreviation soup of votes would more likely be confusing than simplifying. —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 05:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
**The purpose of the first column tags is to allow for compact !voting, yet still more readable to the closing admin than just sequentially assigned meaningless letters (A, B, C...). --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Don't use ALLCAPSSHORTCUTS as English words. This is jargon, creating a barrier to newcomers. Instead, use standard English. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Why is "Alludes to inherited notability" a CON? Her notability ''is'' inherited. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:*"Inherited notability" used to be a big no-no at WP:N. It's not there anymore. Even if only of inherited notability, this article would be a justifiable spinout from Gordon Brown. "Alludes to inherited notability" removed. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* The first version used "[[Sarah Macaulay]]"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Jane_Brown&oldid=129788341 As the first version, it should probably be on the table. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:*Seems a bit silly, I don't think anyone would consider it. She once went by her maiden name, but given that we have complete proof that [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6240852.stm it is no longer part of her name] and that it certainly doesn't fit the common name requirements, I'm not sure if there is any pro to having it.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 01:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::* Agree, but as the first version, it should be noted, if not listed as an option. WP:RETAIN would see it as the default, but I think the status quo (Sarah Jane Brown) should be considered the default should there be a finding of no consensus. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::*The implicit if not explicit intent of [[WP:RETAIN]] (per [[WP:COMMON]]) would see it as the default only if there was no preference between it and another title. If the original title is X, we don't go with X if we can't decide between Y and Z. RETAIN only favors the original title X if we're trying to decide between X and Y or X and Z, and can't reach consensus. At this point nobody has favored [[Sarah Macaulay]] since the first RM. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Actually, [[WP:RETAIN]] only applies to varieties of English anyway. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::*WP:RETAIN is an excellent principle that generalises well. However, I think we are agreed that [[Sarah Macaulay]] is not a viable option, inferior to the current, and that in the case of "no consensus", there should be no move? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Sigh. Per above, I have deep reservations about the wisdom of this RM, but since it's going forward anyway... I edited the table, the "Pros" and "Cons" section is asking for trouble. The ordering was also weird; we know you don't like the current title B2C, but surely hiding it in the middle is silly, it should be first as the community has reluctantly settled on it as our current best guess. I changed the order and chopped out some of the more... contentious... alleged "pros" and "cons", like "spouse" being less sexist than "wife," and tried to group related titles together. (The word 'wife' is not the complaint here; it's phrasing the person only in respect to their spouse that's the issue, which doesn't change at all with that phrasing.) Or certain titles just flat asserted to be "contrary to policy" (O RLY, etc.). Cite relevant policy, sure, just don't prejudge... [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
**The ordering was determined randomly by someone else. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::* B2C, I '''strongly''' disagree with your Pros for "Sarah Jane Brown". There is more leeway in the Cons section, but please, your phrasing implies that Jane was no longer her middle name after marriage, a claim which is unlikely in the extreme and which you have been unable to affirmatively source in this discussion. Everyone can non-controversially agree that sources don't generally refer to her that way, which is a legitimate con to the title. The implication that she ''actually removed the name'' meets [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]]; this is something weird and non-standard, and requires direct sourcing to that effect. It's fine that you believe it, and you're free to advocate for it all you like, but it is *not* material to stick in the "pros" of an allegedly neutral table. It is at best a "Con" counterargument. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 22:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just to be clear what we're talking about, this is what the PRO for "Sarah Jane Brown" currently says: ''"Believed by some to be her name since "Jane" was her middle name before marriage."'', and what you had it say before: ''"It's her name"''. That she ''actually removed the name'' is but one possible explanation for why no sources use it, but it is not necessarily implied. That she stopped using it is another possible explanation. We don't know, and it doesn't matter. What does matter is that we determine what is a name in WP based on usage in reliable sources, and by that gold standard "Sarah Jane Brown" is quite simply not her name. Some never-the-less believe it is her name because "Jane" was her middle name before marriage. That's a fact. We can't say anything else definitively. That's the point. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 22:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In the absence of evidence otherwise, her full name is most reasonably presumbed to be "Sarah Jane Brown". --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 22:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Have you ever heard of the acronym NMI? Lots of people don't have a middle name (nor middle initial). Her full name is at least as likely to be "Sarah Brown" as it is to be "Sarah Jane Brown", especially since there is NO evidence that it is the latter. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 22:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, familiar with NMI, or NMN. Have never heard of anyone legally dropping a given middle name. Sure, they may not use it, but given names are well presumed to persist in the absence of evidence otherwise. No, the first is not "at least as likely". Evidence that she once had the middle name Jane is evidence that she has a middle name Jane. You are making an extraordinary claim without evidence. And it is an unnecessary claim. And you serve no purpose in making it repeatedly. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Stop with the straw man. I am not claiming it is not her middle name. I am not claiming she dropped her middle name. I am only stating, in response to the claim that "Jane" ''is'' her middle name, that that claim is unsubstantiated. That "Jane" MAY no longer be her middle name. It MAY be that she dropped her middle name. Or it MAY be that it is still her middle name. We just DON'T KNOW. What we do know is that neither she nor reliable sources use it to refer to her, so neither should we. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::ALLCAPS don't make you right either. Sources have substantiated that her middle name is Jane. That is sufficient. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Sufficient for what, exactly? Please be clear, or is your argument reliant on semantic ambiguity? Sources stating her middle name before her marriage was "Jane" are not sufficient to state her name now ''is'' "Sarah Jane Brown". --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Yes they are. You are also erroneously assuming that "her name" is a single defined name. That she styles herself "Sarah Brown" doesn't mean that "Sarah Jane" is not also her name. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::''Another'' straw man? Really, I don't provide enough argument so you have to make some up to refute? Never have I assumed that she has a single defined name. Nor have I assumed she has multiple names. I'm not assuming anything. All I know is that the only name she goes by now, and has since her marriage, is "Sarah Brown". I know of no evidence indicating "Sarah Jane" is or is not her name. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::"her name now ''is''", with your emphasis on "is", implies singularity of name. Combining sources, not even close to violating WP:SYNTH, allows us to conclude her full name is "Sarah Jane Brown" in British styling, or arguably "Sarah Jane Macauley Brown" in American styling. But back to basics, there is nothing inherently ''wrong'' with the current title. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::It's a blatant violation of what [[WP:NATURAL]] (policy) explicitly states, and what it states is for good reason. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::That's your opinion of your reading of a line of policy as edited by you, and I disagree with it. Middle name disambiguation is natural disambiguation, is preferable as such, whether or not an ALLCAPS version as-written differs. I support [["Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)]] because it is more recognizable, not because the current is a moral violation, but I also see that this option did not win the discussion, evident in RM6 and the Move Review. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::Middle name disambiguation is in general "natural" disambiguation (colloquial definition), but in this case it's not [[WP:NATURAL]] disambiguation (WP policy definition). What [[WP:NATURAL]] explicitly states is: "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" (my only edit was adding the standard "reliable sources" clarification which is inconsequential here). How else can one reasonably interpret that ''for this case'' other than "'Sarah Jane Brown' does not qualify"? Now, you may disagree with that policy, but then you're invoking IAR, which is fine and perhaps even appropriate. But be clear about it if that's your position. Don't hide it behind a fog of straw men and lame "that's your opinion" arguments. It would be helpful if you were clear about whether you agree with the [[WP:NATURAL]] wording in general, but just think it should be ignored in this case, or if you think the restriction to "also commonly called" names needs to be removed from [[WP:NATURAL]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 02:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::No. You overstate arguments beyond "objective" to the point where it has to be disagreed with. If it were you own !vote, it would be fine. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::Now what are you on about? I'm asking you about your opinion and your position regarding what [[WP:NATURAL|"choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"]] means with respect to "Sarah Jane Brown" and this subject, and why. Why are you responding in terms of anything I've ever said anywhere? Can you blame me for thinking you're dodging? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 03:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::My opinion on titling policy? It is far softer, less decisive, less dogmatic, than your preferred interpretations. |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::Dodging? I have already said everything at least once. I disagree with some of your interpretations, for reasons already given. You don't have to agree with my disagreement, but I do allege that you are not being objective with respect to your planned pre-stated pros and cons for the current title. In over-controlling your "DRAFT: title choice table", you are [[poisoning the well]] with respect to arguments in support of the status quo. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::You're dodging again. I ask for your opinion about how a specific phrase in [[WP:NATURAL]] should apply in this case, and you answer a much more general question (your "opinion on titling policy") and answer that relative to your (misguided) opinion of my opinion on titling policy, which is not what I asked, and then go on about disagreeing with some of my unspecified interpretations, and drift into (criticizing without specifics, again) my lack of objectivity on the pros and cons etc. What does that have to do with the specific question I'm asking? Nothing. You're ranting and dodging. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
How is [[Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister)]] sexist? Is [[Denis Thatcher (spouse of prime minister)]] sexist? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:[[WP:OSE]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Its existence is not the point. I just created it so it wouldn't be a red link, though I could just as easily have asked, ''Would'' it be sexist? Anyway, the questions stand: How is [[Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister)]] sexist? Is [[Denis Thatcher (spouse of prime minister)]] sexist? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::<p>Follow-up: If [Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister)]] and [[Denis Thatcher (spouse of prime minister)]] are sexist, what about [[Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]]? Is that sexist too? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I think “sexist” is the wrong word here. Identifying ''any'' person primarily by a connection to some other person is arguably '''disrespectful''', as if implying that the connection is more important than anything about the actual ''person''. It’s like saying “James McCartney (son of Paul McCartney)” rather than “James McCartney (musician).” I hope I’m making sense here. —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 04:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Honestly B2C, it is very difficult to take your yellow-highlighted claim asking editors to "Feel free to improve this table. The goal is to make it informative and objective" when you seem insistent on taking [[WP:OWN]]ership of it, and are edit-warring against multiple editors to retain your personal, POV opinions. It serves as a microcosm of the larger issue: You simply will not accept that you won't always get your way. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
**The goal of the table, like the ultimate goal of the forming RM, is a result that is acceptable to all participants. The chief characteristic of the evolution of the table is compromise and adjusting, not repeated reverts. That's a sign of developing consensus. Lead, follow or get out of the way. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 16:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
***I think you may need to pay more attention to NY Brad's post below, where, barring a last minute sea change of opposes, will eventually close with a solid support of a 6-month moratorium, which will short-circuit this entire farce. On the slim, 1% chance that an RM is actually held, though, we certainly will not be posting a voting table with pro and con columns. You don't get to pre-judge the choices, editors can coem to their own decisions on the merits of the choices. But really, as the moratorium looms, that's largely an academic point only. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
=== Proposal: Extra rider on the next RM === |
|||
This is now now the 9th RM on this page. I propose that the next RM be closed with the extra rider, "Any further RM on this topic in the next year will be considered disruptive. Any admin may impose a block of two weeks' duration on any editor initiating an RM on this page within that period." [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 05:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: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.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I might be misinterpreting proposal though, I don't know if by "next RM" you meant when this one goes live or if you meant the one after it.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 16:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I can virtually guarantee you that the only result this RM will produce is more drama caused by the two people pushing it. "Oh, look, none of the options got consensus, but we have a plurality of votes. Lets redo the entire thing all over again by removing a couple options that we don't like." [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 16:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I hope that one of the options will clearly be found more significantly "Acceptable" than the others. But if it's close even after taking into account the "Preferred" factor (which is intended to be a tie-breaker), the recommendation to the closer in the draft RM proposal message is to select the top two and recommend a run-off RM between them.<p>In general, I oppose RM discussion moratoriums where consensus has not yet been reached. Here is why: [[User:Born2cycle/FAQ#RM_proposal_moratoriums]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 17:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Per RM6, thoroughly reviewed at WP:MR, consensus was found for the current title. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 22:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::''This is certainly the most thorough and pre-planned of the RMs we've had on this page'' - so what's the problem with making the result stick for a year and going and doing something more useful instead? [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 23:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::What if the result is a toss-up between two titles and the close recommends a run-off between those two? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::<p>Also, history indicates a result like this will be accepted by the community and no moratorium will be required. Let's try to resolve this without heavy-handedness. If that fails, then we can seek invoking administrative actions, etc. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
== Propose moratorium on pagemove 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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 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)--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 23:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::For whatever it's worth, I explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jane_Brown&diff=629915528&oldid=629913910 here] why I think this giant, 10 option RM will provide a much less conclusive answer than a regular RM would. [[User:Egsan Bacon|Egsan Bacon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 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. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 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. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 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. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|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. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 03:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. Maybe a six-month cooling-off period will convince some people to drop the stick. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk: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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jane_Brown&diff=629915528&oldid=629913910 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. [[User:Egsan Bacon|Egsan Bacon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk: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. <p>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 list[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Past_RM_participant_list#Combined list] before I noticed you reverted the proposal. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 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. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 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. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:11, 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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:11, 24 October 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Jane Brown article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
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. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Requested moves (No. 9)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: still no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
– Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Consensus can change. Since this move was first suggested, editors who originally opposed it, even very strongly, have changed their minds: [1] from Anthonyhcole and [2] from User:Tarc, to give examples from two editors who were at first entirely against the move. Let me summarise the arguments in a table.
Title | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|
Sarah Brown | Uses name by which Sarah Brown is always known. Familiar to readers. Concise. Unambiguous. Presents no sexism problems. | Small violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. |
Sarah Jane Brown | No apparent advantage, other than being a temporary and imperfect compromise. | Uses obscure middle name Sarah Brown does not use. Readers do not know this name. Sources never use this name. Confusing. Surprising. |
The violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is because of Sarah Joy Brown, but the violation is not a major one at all:
- This article: ~100 hits per day [3]
- Sarah Joy Brown: ~100 hits per day [4]
- Sarah Brown (politician): ~20 hits per day [5]
- Sarah Brown (artists' model): ~3 hits per day [6]
As previous discussion has shown, no title works perfectly. What we have here is an opportunity to allow flexibility with one rule in order to create an improved experience for our readers. This is what we, as Wikipedia contributors, should strive for. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy with either the status quo, or a move to Sarah Brown with a hatnote saying "for the American actress see Sarah Joy Brown; for other Sarah Browns see Sarah Brown (disambiguation)". In terms of service to the reader, I think the second is the better option because it takes them straight to one of the two articles they're most likely looking for, with one click to the other (or two clicks to the less-likely targets). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the choice of hatnote: it will help the reader and avoid any potential problems. It means there can be no complaints that readers looking for the other Sarah Browns are put at a disservice. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - This IP editor's assertion that I have "changed my mind" is a bit disingenuous. WHat I have opposed and continue to oppose is any move back to the misogynist "wife of...", "spouse of...", "...Prime Minister's spouse", and the like. While I do not oppose a move to a straight-up "Sarah Brown" per se, what I fear is that this will be a proverbial can of worms for the usual suspects to show up and start throwing out alternate, narrow-minded possibilities into the mix. Tarc (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- If we can agree a single move to 'Sarah Brown', we should obtain a stable title that satisfies the majority of editors and readers. Any further suggestions to the 'misogynist' titles you describe can be closed straight away: they have been ruled out before and there is no evidence that this consensus might change. If anything, changing to a stable and accepted title should dissuade editors from feeling the need to suggest anything else that might be taken as controversial. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Moving this topic to the name Sarah Brown, but
Oppose not using parenthetical disambiguation.It is fairly absurd, when the overwhelming majority of sources show what is unquestionably the subject's WP:Common name, for us to instead use a name that is rarely if ever used. However, I do not think it is clear that this subject is the intended target for the overwhelming majority of readers using the search term "Sarah Brown", and that this would therefore be the primary topic. Unfortunately, while we normally prefer to use as a disambiguation the role the subject is best known for, in this case that would be Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), which I believe we all agree raises numerous issues. Perhaps some of the terms used to describe herself on her official site would be alternatives (advocate, businesswoman, etc)? This would certainly raise the issue of presenting her as most notable for a field she does not derive most of her significance from, but I would say that is less harmful than implying that a never used version of her name is the correct one. Or perhaps, since we are all willing to acknowledge that yes, her most significant role is as the Prime Minister's spouse, that title is less offensive than some may claim.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, screw it. I'm retracting my half oppose. There is clearly no perfect solution to this. But a small violation of our primary topic guideline is far less harmful than portraying misleading information in the title, either about her best known name or best known role. Fortunately, the only real rival for her position as primary topic is Sarah Joy Brown, who while very commonly called simply Sarah Brown at least has a slightly different most common name. It's an imperfect solution, but I guess the proposed on is the best.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose usage stats indicate no primary topic. How about Sarah Macaulay Brown instead then? Or Sarah Macaulay or Sarah Brown (born 1963) ? What can we consider her primary career? "public relations"? -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Sarah Maculay Brown" isn't her name at all - British women generally don't combine their maiden and married names like that. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - I wish Sarah Brown (actress) were more popular than some Spouse of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Anyway, I don't know, but many non-British people are fully unaware of this Spouse. Is there no other way to concisely disambiguate her in parenthesis? Not even "Sarah Brown (Gordon Brown's wife)"? Ah well, there must be more notable Spouses besides Denis Thatcher, whose first name I nearly forgot. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not primary topic. Most non-British people have no idea who this is; calling her the primary topic is a localized form of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of the "Rule Britannia" sort. Not everyone follows British tabloids. A better title might be Sarah Brown (British celebrity) or something otherwise generic. I mean, does this person really have nothing notable about them other than being married to someone famous? If not, WP:N is not heritable and does not rub off, so why do we have an article on someone who isn't famous for anything to do with her own self? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel it shouldn't exist, try taking it to AFD and see how far it gets. To avoid systematic bias, make sure you nominate some American First Ladies at the same time. Prime Ministerial spouses a lot of coverage in their own right but we British aren't big on formalising everything when it's already being done in practice (it took well over a century for the position of "Prime Minister" to have any formal recognition!) so there isn't a formal title. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Propose that all future RMs for this page be located on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Article title discussions (or using whatever the current article title is if not "Sarah Jane Brown"), and that new nominations are not allowed unless they summarise the previous RM discussions and state why the new nomination is worth a new discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose this proposal. She is not a PrimaryTopic for this name. Both Sarah Macaulay Brown and Sarah Jane Brown would be acceptable. Sarah Macaulay Brown has the advantage of carrying Sarah Macaulay, her name for a long time. Timrollpickering, Sarah Macaulay Brown is not her name by what definition of name? It is probably the name most readily identifying her. Oppose parenthetical disambiguation that depends on inherited notability from her husband. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not her name because it is not a combination of words used in any way to identify her. It's a combination of her maiden and married names in a US style not used in this country. If you want to include "Macaulay" then it should be "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)". Timrollpickering (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- "It's not her name" versus "it's a name that identifies her" is a contrived distinction. What is a name? And must a bio title be that name? That's more contrived than evading the fact that no one in the real world names her with a parenthetical disambiguator. It is quite normal in the real world to list a former surname just before the current surname. If the née terminology is used, it is normal used in comma format, not parenthetically, and even dropping the comma. Sarah Brown, née Macauley. Parenthetical disambiguation for people is usually reserved for occupation, and birth & death years. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not her name because it is not a combination of words used in any way to identify her. It's a combination of her maiden and married names in a US style not used in this country. If you want to include "Macaulay" then it should be "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)". Timrollpickering (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. There's no point in pretending there's an easy solution on this one but the current article title is an utterly unrecognisable and obscue name and gives the misleading impression her given name actually is "Sarah Jane". Whatever title we have will not satisy every user and policy but this would at least be using the actual given name. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak oppose with preference for move to something like Sarah Brown (Charity campaigner). I find some of the other Sarah Brown's to be more interesting ... especially the British Sarah Brown (politician). "Rule Britannia" :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, and per Perfect is the enemy of good. The lack of a perfect solution is hindering people's ability to find the best solution. The best solution is going to have flaws, it just has LESS flaws than any other possible solution. The OPs rationale makes that clear: the solution proposed appears to be the best possible solution. That doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws, it just means it has less flaws than any other solution proposed so far, including the status quo. --Jayron32 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Sarah Jane Brown" is fine. Having such a comparatively unimportant person occupy "Sarah Brown" is a large violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not a small one. SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose If she's not the primary topic, the article can't be moved to that name. If she's known as "Sarah Brown", then a suitable disambiguator must be found. Schwede66 20:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Rename I doubt there is a bigger proponent/defender of Primary Topic than I, but there is simply no acceptable disambiguator for this title. But the current title is not acceptable. So Sarah Brown is fine in this case, even if she does not strictly meet the PT criteria. I would also support Sarah Brown (British celebrity) or Sarah Brown (Gordon Brown's wife) over the current title. --В²C ☎
- That something doesn't have the correct disambiguator does not make it the primary topic, so we should pick a better disambiguator instead of making this a precedent for moving articles with bad disambiguators to being base name primary choice. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- "(Gordon Brown's wife)" will never be on the table again. N-E-V-E-R. Tarc (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Every source calls her by the proposed title. Why call her anything else? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that a topic is primary if it is "more likely than all the other topics combined." But you can't assume the reverse. That is to say, there is no requirement that a primary topic get any particular percentage of relevant traffic. After the move, we can put a note on top of this article that says, For the actress, see Sarah Joy Brown.. The actress won't be any harder to find than she is now. Update The purpose of a title, first and formost, it the tell the reader the subject's name, what she is called in the real world. We should be trying to put as many bios as possible at the subject's actual name. Perhaps the name "primary topic" has misled editors into thinking that the idea is to rank articles according to thier worthyness. Claimsworth (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- If it isn't the primary topic it cannot occupy the primary location. So whatever this article is called, it cannot be just "Sarah Brown", it must be a different article name. "Sarah Brown (Jane)" or "Sarah Brown (Macaulay)" or "Sarah Brown (not the actress, but otherwise most prominent Sarah Brown who is not an actress)" or whatever, but not "Sarah Brown" -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- What guideline says that? This way of looking at the issue misses the point of titles, which is to tell the reader the name of the subject. If we move this article to Sarah Brown, then it is primary. Claimsworth (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DISAMBIGUATION. show that it is the primary topic, or it shouldn't use the primary location. Why should something that isn't the primary topic have the primary location? -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists," according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This RM will determine consensus on the issue. The guideline suggests making a topic primary if it is "more likely [as a desired destination] than all the other topics combined." In this case, Sarah Joy Brown is easily the most likely desired destination, yet the lemma Sarah Brown leads to a DAB. Claimsworth (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- If Sarah Joy Brown is the most desirable article, then Sarah Macaulay should definitely not take the primary position, as Sarah Brown (actress) is primary topic according to your statement. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists," according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This RM will determine consensus on the issue. The guideline suggests making a topic primary if it is "more likely [as a desired destination] than all the other topics combined." In this case, Sarah Joy Brown is easily the most likely desired destination, yet the lemma Sarah Brown leads to a DAB. Claimsworth (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DISAMBIGUATION. show that it is the primary topic, or it shouldn't use the primary location. Why should something that isn't the primary topic have the primary location? -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- What guideline says that? This way of looking at the issue misses the point of titles, which is to tell the reader the name of the subject. If we move this article to Sarah Brown, then it is primary. Claimsworth (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- If it isn't the primary topic it cannot occupy the primary location. So whatever this article is called, it cannot be just "Sarah Brown", it must be a different article name. "Sarah Brown (Jane)" or "Sarah Brown (Macaulay)" or "Sarah Brown (not the actress, but otherwise most prominent Sarah Brown who is not an actress)" or whatever, but not "Sarah Brown" -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. No indication that this Sarah Brown is the primary topic, ergo it would not be appropriate to move this article to the primary title. Current name is fine. Resolute 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose – displacing the disambig page would require agreement on primarytopic status. I don't see that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unfortunately this seems to be one of those cases where there's simply no perfect option, just various flawed alternatives, each of which has something going for it but none of which has the unanimous support of the community. That being the case, it's good to remember that Wikipedia discourages us from replacing one controversial title with another. The 2013 "Sarah Jane Brown" compromise was achieved after lengthy and thorough discussion among many interested parties and even withstood a subsequent MR, so I see that as a fairly robust result, and the one that's most likely to stably continue. (I also share the concerns that others have raised here about this proposal's significant violation of WP's primary topic guideline.) Retaining the current title is the best option under the circumstances, and preferable to flip-flopping it once more to a controversial alternative. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Certainly not the primary topic (and I'm British!). I don't really like the title, as she isn't known as "Sarah Jane Brown", but given the only real alternative is to use Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), the only thing she's really known for, I suppose we have to go with it. Certainly not Sarah Macaulay Brown, as this suggestion comes from an assumption that everyone does things the way the Americans do. We don't. I suppose we could go with Sarah Brown (charity campaigner) or something similar, but as I doubt whether anyone knows what she does when she's not being Gordon Brown's wife that's probably not very useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. Hardly a "small" violation of PRIMARYTOPIC. If "Sarah Jane Brown" isn't a good way to disambiguate, then the article should be moved to "Sarah Brown (something)", not "Sarah Brown". The proposer agrees that she isn't really the primary topic. Looking at move requests 6 and 7 where this came up earlier, it's clear from what the proposers then wrote that the proposal wasn't made because the proposer actually thought this Sarah Brown was the primary, but because some editors strongly opposed "(wife of Gordon Brown)" and no one could agree on any other parenthetical because no one could agree what besides that she was actually notable for. The idea that someone's article should be moved to a title that states they are the most notable person known by a name because it isn't possible to actually explain in what way they're notable at all is paradoxical, to say the least. If it's possible to come up with a parenthetical disambiguation label that doesn't rely on her marriage to Gordon Brown, a proposal should be made to move to that. If it isn't, maybe it's worth taking a good hard look at the idea that just being married to a major nation's head of government (but not its head of state) automatically makes one notable enough to get an article. But whatever else we do, this is one thing we should not do, as it doesn't make any sense. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Egsan Bacon (talk · contribs), I suggest you might be ascribing a little too much importance to an article being at the base name of a given ambiguous title. There is a view that when there are only two topics that share a common name, that either title can be at the base name, and it doesn't even matter which one.
Let us not forget why we disambiguate - to avoid conflicts. As long as one of two ambiguous titles is disambiguated - that problem is solved. Insisting on disambiguating the titles of both uses just because neither one technically qualifies as the Wikipedia-contrived concept of "primary topic" is actually quite silly, especially when we've failed to find a way to disambiguate one of those titles that is supported by consensus. What purpose does such insistence serve, and who benefits from it? Besides the technical violation, why not place it at the base name in question? --В²C ☎ 23:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Egsan Bacon (talk · contribs), I suggest you might be ascribing a little too much importance to an article being at the base name of a given ambiguous title. There is a view that when there are only two topics that share a common name, that either title can be at the base name, and it doesn't even matter which one.
- 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.
Maybe a multiple choice RM?
RM #10 preparations discussion - see result at #Requested move #10
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Maybe we need a multiple choice RM, where participants choose among the current title and several others, making first and second choices? That way at least we can see if the current title is preferred over all other options? Let's use this section to discuss whether such an approach might be fruitful, and, if so, what the other options should be. If we have consensus to go forward, then I'll file a formal RM accordingly. Feel free to add what you think would be a good choice for a title in the box below, and your comments in the Discussion subsection below that. --В²C ☎ 16:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I just added some points to consider about each choice. If you think any are biased please improve accordingly, but the goal is to reduce decision-making by people who may not be aware of the drawbacks of some of these choices. --В²C ☎ 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
I added Sarah Brown (health and education advocate) to the list based on how she describes herself[7]. It's a bit long, but could be worse (Sarah Brown (women and children's health and education advocate)). Probably my favorite at this point. --В²C ☎ 06:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I just added Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister). Because it does not say "wife" nor name her husband, it somehow seems more acceptable than wife of Gordon Brown, and still reflects the characteristic that makes her most notable. Tarc? What do you think? Better? Good enough? We do use similar terminology on every article about every prime minister spouse. See, for example, the caption under the photo of Denis Thatcher... it says Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. --В²C ☎ 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Past participantsLet's use this section to list all (non-IP) participants (including closers) in previous RMs so that they will be easy to access for notifications when we're ready to open an RM. --В²C ☎ 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Wow, great job by IP 131.111.185.66 in compiling this list. I've moved it to a sub-page: Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/participant list. --В²C ☎ 00:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Drafting the proposal statement for this (hopefully final) RMOPEN SECTION - Feel free to revise/improve as you wish. --В²C ☎ 00:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC) The seven-year-long history of this controversial title is summarized at the top of Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. No title has achieved consensus support, yet. The current title, Sarah Jane Brown seems natural. Jane was her middle name before she married Gordon Brown, when her name was "Sarah Jane Macaulay" (background: here). However, she is not referred to, in any reliable source, by herself or by anyone else, as "Sarah Jane Brown". This is a policy conflict because WP:NATURAL says to "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" (which is reasonable). This name clearly does not meet that criteria. More here. From the choices below, please:
Example:
CLOSING ADMIN: Please identify one clear most acceptable/least unacceptable choice if possible, and move to (or retain) that title. If it's too close to call between two, please consider moving to (or retaining) the title that appears the most acceptable choice and suggesting a new "run-off RM" between the top two choices. --~~~~ Discuss the draftNo. Borda count is a particularly poor voting method. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
B2C, you continue to use the word "misleading", but it's not misleading. It's her full name. The frequency with which reliable sources use her full name does not change that. No one is being mislead. Nothing is being harmed. Omnedon (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added a bit more explanation about why the middle name is problematic and misleading into the draft RM message above. Does that help? --В²C ☎ 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth noting that British names are considered slightly differently to those of many other countries. There is no real concept of "legally changing a name": British subjects do not require any kind of legal document or permission in order to change their name, for example. Simply adopting a new name and renouncing a former name is sufficient (some further details here). This is a very interesting article. See this extract concerning their marriage:
Note that the few sources using "Jane" given before were published at the time of her marriage. It really does seem as if Brown's middle name, Jane, is something that is not used publicly. It emphasises even further the unsuitability of the current title when more natural and helpful disambiguators exist. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Status: list of title options appears close if not final; RM message still in progressLooks like updates to the list of options have petered out, but editing of the draft RM message remains active. As soon as that settles down I'll file the RM. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Leave struck out options out?What we're trying to accomplish with this effort is to find a solution that is broadly supported. I'm concerned that leaving these off the list will allow the final decision here to be questioned as not being a comprehensive process. After all, consensus can change, and in this kind of process it's theoretically possible for a previously rejected option to be found to be most acceptable. In this particular case I think it's practically impossible for that to happen (I, for one, will list "wife of Gordon Brown" as unacceptable because of others' BLP concerns even though I don't agree with them), but I don't want to leave room for others to reasonably question whatever result we end up here. I'm concerned that if we leave these off, that's exactly what others may argue in the future, and we won't have settled this after all. On the other hand, if they're on the list, we'll have evidence that they were soundly rejected by consensus in this consideration of all titles. --В²C ☎ 18:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Include drawback considerations?I added some considerations under each of the choices[14], but it has been reverted (twice) for being biased and not objective, but no specific problems were identified. Perhaps (it's hard to see one's own biases), but the intent is to inform participants of previously identified primary drawbacks (if applicable) for each, fairly. I won't dispute that my summaries were imperfect, but I still think it's a good idea. For example, in the past others did not realize the misogynistic drawbacks of "wife of ...". What is the harm in identifying this problem with that choice? With that brought to their attention, they can make more informed choices, it seems to me. If there are specific problems of bias, why not just fix them? Let's fairly summarize the primary drawbacks of each choice, so everybody knows. Okay? --В²C ☎ 00:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
Sarah Brown
Sarah Jane Brown
Sarah Brown (campaigner)
We should all be able to agree on a quick advantage and disadvantage for each. Just keep them short enough not to be too leading. The alternative might well be having some editors vote on an issue they have not looked at in enough detail, unfortunately. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
A couple of questionsA couple of questions addressed to the small number of people who are still obsessed with moving this article despite the evident lack of consensus for every single alternative thus offered:
For the record: my view is still firmly that there is no problem to fix, and every suggestion made thus far introduces problems that would need fixing, and would best be fixed by moving it right back to the current title. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
What about putting each selection in one of three categories?It occurs to me that asking participants to order all of the choices might lead to unintended distinctions. To address this, what about asking participants to place each choice in one of three categories. Sample instructions:
I think this should give us, and the closer, a clearer view of what is going on. What do you think? --В²C ☎ 00:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Why the current title, Sarah Jane Brown, needs to changePeople keep asking this question and apparently missing my answer, so I'm creating this section to keep from having to repeat it any more. The disambiguator in this title, "Jane", is not in parentheses. Because it's not in parentheses, and not separated by a comma, WP:NATURAL applies to this title, which states: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English. Since this person is not commonly called "Sarah Jane Brown", it does not meet this criteria. Not even close. Note we're not arguing it is merely insufficiently used to meet the "also commonly called" criteria; it's that it's NEVER used (by reliable sources, which is what matters) to call her that.And this isn't wiki lawyering (in case anyone is wondering) or WP:JDLI rationalizing just to oppose an unliked title. The reason this title is unacceptable and so must change is that titles disambiguated without parentheses are supposed to be recognizable as commonly used references to the topic. This is important because people can and do rely on WP titles to accurately reflect how topics are typically named. Sarah Joy Brown, for example, is not a misleading misnomer like this title is. Her own website refers to her with (as well as without) the "Joy" middle name. So do reliable sources, like TV Guide [15]. So when people go to that article and see the title Sarah Joy Brown, they are not being mislead, because that is her full name. But there is nothing like that supporting "Sarah Jane Brown" for this topic. Nothing. When people go this article and see the title Sarah Jane Brown, they are misled into thinking this is her full name. At least one website is already perpetuating the misnomer, and it's our fault. We need to fix it; the sooner the better. --В²C ☎ 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
DRAFT: title choice tableFeel free to improve this table. The goal is to make it informative and objective. This will be part of the RM proposal. --В²C ☎ 22:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments about table
How is Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister) sexist? Is Denis Thatcher (spouse of prime minister) sexist? --В²C ☎ 01:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think “sexist” is the wrong word here. Identifying any person primarily by a connection to some other person is arguably disrespectful, as if implying that the connection is more important than anything about the actual person. It’s like saying “James McCartney (son of Paul McCartney)” rather than “James McCartney (musician).” I hope I’m making sense here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: Extra rider on the next RMThis is now now the 9th RM on this page. I propose that the next RM be closed with the extra rider, "Any further RM on this topic in the next year will be considered disruptive. Any admin may impose a block of two weeks' duration on any editor initiating an RM on this page within that period." GoldenRing (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Propose moratorium on pagemove 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs of politicians and government-people
- Wikipedia requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class socialism articles
- Low-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- B-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles