Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

RfC: Proposing the third moratorium[edit]

12 MONTH MORATORIUM:
There is no real guiding policy here, and given the amount of discussion spent on this, it isn't irrational to have such a moratorium, so it's really up to those participating. There is a numeric consensus to have a moratorium. Treating the comments to oppose the moratorium as requesting a 0 month moratorium and "any length" as a long one, I get a median value of 12 months. Which is also the length of the last one which seems reasonable. Let's go with January 3rd (after the winter break as some requested) before starting this again. Also, I'd suggest next time around there be a list of choices and people !vote on those, giving a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice (or more I suppose). It may be that the current title is best one, but there are strong arguments against it and it's not clear it actually enjoys more support than the other choices. A "multiple-choice" ballot might bring something useful to the fore. This last part is simply a suggestion and not part of the formal close as while a similar idea was mentioned, there was no discussion to form a consensus around it. Hobit (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After consensus again went against parenthetical disambiguation the sixth time, I am proposing to hold off another RM for now. If you favor the third moratorium, how long? --Relisting. George Ho (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Slakr closed the last moratorium RfC as one year, so I support at least one year, preferably two. SarahSV (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The close was against the specific proposal with the closer explicitly stating as such so the basis of this RFC is false. The previous moratorium expired some months back and there's only been one RM since then, not the instant repeated proposals, usually by the same user, that merit such a restraint. Banning discussion does not create a consensus. Timrollpickering 00:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Tim, which time length of moratorium do you prefer? George Ho (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Scratch that. I misread your opposition. You can disregard this; no need to reply. George Ho (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Probably but complicated. I am a supporter of the admin closer of repeat contentious RMs holding a prerogative to declare a moratorium, where the default is 6 months for a consensus close, and 2 months for a non consensus close, counting from the date stamp of the close. This time, the closer User:Amakuru, didn't do that, but instead appears to imply permission for a relatively soon repeat RM for the highly contentious, previously repudiated, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), a title supported by a few and strongly opposed by more than a few. My personal preference, Sarah Brown (née Macaulay), which I came up with through slowly reading all the archives, has not had a run. Assuming the standard moratorium of 6 months, am I supposed to jump in at 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC) to unilaterally lock in my preferred proposal for the next cycle? No, I recommend both a moratorium (default = 6 months) and a requirement that at least two editors openly agree to the detail of the next RM proposal, and that if the next RM is for a return to a previous title (eg Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)) then the proposals are required to thoroughly summarise the relevant past. I also wish to point to WP:TITLECHANGES, and to note that the current title is acceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for many reasons. First, in general, I consistently oppose such moratoriums. Second, this is clearly an unresolved situation and probably needs a more sophisticated mechanism for finding a consensus favored solution. By "more sophisticated" I mean multiple choice, perhaps with weighting, rather than simply offering a single alternative to the current title. Finally, I've seen this many times before. Just because there is a history of unresolved RMs does not mean we can't or won't find a consensus solution with the next RM. It's a process that works, eventually, but not by impeding it with moratoriums... --В²C 23:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Keep asking until you get what you want is not a good way to run Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Guy, can you please describe the duration of the moratorium? More clarity would be helpful. George Ho (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
A year. This has become old. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for at least 6 months. This type of RM is the exact type of wallowing in process over function that drives away both new and existing editors. In this particular case, there is nothing that hasn't been discussed thoroughly, nay, exhaustively in recent discussions, and little is likely to change to alter the lack of consensus. Another RM in the near future highly unlikely to serve the purpose of the project in any substantive manner. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for 12 months (but will settle for six). And I dont even like the current title... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no reason to not try fixing this quarterly WP:COMMONNAME is a fairly important guideline that is applied fairly consistently across en.wp. The largest single voice in above discussion were those expressing support for WP:COMMONNAME. It won't hurt to have this discussion take place quarterly while the article sticks out like a sore thumb. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Or alternatively why can't Gordon Brown's wife simply change her name and start calling herself "Sarah Jane Brown", not doing so is highly inconsiderate of en.wikipedia. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, prefer 13 months. I'd like for the next ritual beating of the dead horse to take place after the winter holidays. --Carnildo (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • unable to discern the question Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Here goes, Elinruby: there have been too many RMs, especially before and after the title changed from "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" into "Sarah Jane Brown". Previous two moratoriums have been implemented per consensus, each after one failed RM. The third moratorium is based on another failed proposal to change to "Sarah Brown (charity director)". Every RM was initiated by a person who found "Sarah Jane Brown" the least commonly used name. However, there is no way to disambiguate this Sarah Brown, the spouse/wife of PM Gordon Brown. This moratorium is to hold off another RM for whatever time duration you prefer. Read all of it, especially links at the top of the page. George Ho (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; I googled and was about to post something sarcastic but I don't think I actually understood the question. Now I have a stupid question but let me go read the material which will answer it maybe -- and attempt an actual answer, as someone who has also in the past posted a question too complicated to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talkcontribs) 06:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
So the question is whether to seek further comment or stop talking about this? Over and over again? I got about halfway down the page Elinruby (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You can put it that way, or shall I say that no more RMs for... how long? George Ho (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC); Pinging Elinruby. 17:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
and the problem is that everytime there is a RM there is another round? Is that it? Half of me wants to just vote for whatever makes people stop talking about this. Then I get a grip, because, ok, (wife of) bothers me too. Frankly, I really don't care what we call this woman. Except I do hate (wife of). Have we established independent notability? What's her maiden name? I suppose more discussion is what we have to choose? Or am I still not understanding this? But I think you despair too soon. Look at Ugg boots and be thankful you aren't plagued with paid editors. Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
sigh, she does seem to be independently notable. It would have solved this so nicely if we merged her into her husband's article. Has anyone considered (activist) or making her maiden name a middle name à la Hillary Rodham Clinton? Sarah Mackauley (sp?) Brown? I dunno. I have reached my current limit for taking this serioously and I am working on an attack piece on Dilma Rousseff so.... good luck with that. I may check back but I am out of constructive questions and ideas for the moment. Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 12 months moratorium. Using the name of a person for their article is not a problem and while it is fun for some to debate things indefinitely it is very tiring and unproductive for others. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)r
  • Oppose but... I am inclined to support a move to Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) as SmokeyJoe suggested. As such, I cannot support a moratorium here. However, I could support an agreement that any future RM should be nominated by 2 editors and the target title should be preferably one which has not been previously discussed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Which would exclude your preferred title, as it was previously rejected. Actually I think that the first step would have to be an unambiguous consensus - bare minimum 2/3 majority - that there is actually a problem to fix. If people can persuade me there is a problem to fix, and that WP:ITABSOLUTELYMUSTBEPARENTHESES is now policy, then we can talk about the target, but given the absence of any consensus that there is even a problem to fix, discussing the relative merits of different several-times-rejected fixes to the (non-)problem, is moot. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose moratorium. I saw some seeds of a possible consensus towards a "(wife of Gordon Brown)" disambiguator in the last move request (which I closed), so I don't see why we'd artificially cut off discussion around that possibility now. It may well be a better disambiguator than the little known middle name currently in place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That has been explicitly rejected as sexist. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment - Although I'm involved, I requested a closure at WP:ANRFC. However, seems that waiting for an admin would be a while. Meanwhile, I am relisting this, just in case, to continue discussion for the time being. George Ho (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, and of any length. Per Guy. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - wikipedia has much bigger problems. We should stop talking about this unless someone has a new and better idea. I dislike titles with parentheses in general, and although she would probably not have an article of this length if she were married to someone else, she does have independent projects and issues and news coverage so yes, it does seem a mite sexist to put "wife of" in the title as her single distinguishing feature. The lede of this page and the disambiguation page can deal with her marital status in the body of the text or list item. Oh and let's see -- I originally was here because I was summoned by bot, although I am here today because it was re-listed. Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sarah Jane Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)