Talk:Tanni Grey-Thompson

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

Untitled[edit]

Her book, Aim High, which is part of the Quick Reads series, is being published by Accent Press on World Book Day, March 1st 2007.

Rename[edit]

What is the objection to renaming the article without her title. Titles are not generally used in Wikipedia and the article name as it currently stands is unwieldy. Removing the title makes it simpler. I created a redirect with the title at the same time. noq (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Titles are generally used in Wikipedia articles, and I'm not sure where you get the idea to the contrary. There is no good reason for this article to be an exception. If you find it that cumbersome to use the full article title, Tanni Grey-Thompson has been a redirect here since she became a peer. -Rrius (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I missed WP:NCPEER - it seems your correct - sorry. Although I did not see the Tanni Grey-Thompson article existing before I moved it or I would not of bothered. noq (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
NC:PEER is simply a guidleine and not some LAW. Treat it with common sence or idiotic article titles like this one reamin unchallenged and poision the aims of Wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved: 5 support / 2 oppose majority after 24 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


Tanni Grey-Thompson, Baroness Grey-ThompsonTanni Grey-Thompson

One of the clearest cut examples of abusive interpretation of NC:PEER, no common sense in its application, no discussion before moving and absolutely no understanding of its confusing nature by moving from the widely known common name to the unknown ennobled title. No disambiguation is required as this is quite obviously the primary topic. Thompson is known virtually exclusively for being a Paralympic athlete and not in any way for being a member of the House of Lords. This is the clearest example of NC:PEER needing scrapping as it is interpreted like a cast iron law with no common-sense applied. Blanket moves away from article titles which are of the primary topic are a clear contravention of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and of WP:TITLE. With WP:TITLE staing Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. The addition and useage of the ennobled title is the clearest contradiction of the goals of WP:TITLE. -Lucy-marie (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This peeress is no longer wholly or exclusively known by her pre-peerage nomenclature. Bad faith nomination by a person who dislikes NCPEER. Kittybrewster 11:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment - this is not a bad fiath nomination please always assume good faith. This is simply the clearest example of blindly imposing NC:PEER as a law. No bad faith ivolved in this senible and reasoned RM.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Known for being an olympic athlete. Blindly applying WP:NCPEER to a person who has wide spread notability outside of their peerage is wrong as that means that only editors that work in the peerage area and have contributed to that guideline have any say over the naming of an article after a person becomes a peer and the views of anyone who works in the area of their other reason(s) for notability is then effectively ignored. Where the peerage is the predominant reason for their notability applying NCPEER is fine but in situations such as this some common sense needs to be used and the interests of the two groups balanced. Dpmuk (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - well known outside her peerage credentials with her own name "Tanni Grey-Thompson". "Lady Grey-Thompson" or "Baroness Grey-Thompson" probably wouldn't even be recognised by most people.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - known almost exclusively by her personal name; her title is not familiar and we should use common names where possible. WP:NCPEER allows for exceptions, and this is a clear-cut case. Warofdreams talk 09:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Overwhelmingly known for her carer as an athlete, when she was known by her untitled name. If she becomes prominent in the House of Lords, the balance may change, but at this point she clearly fits the exception in WP:NCPEER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - She is already commonly referred to as Baronness and so this isn't really a case of WP:NCPEER versus common usage: this is common usage. [1]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Can some evidence please be provided to support the above claim the she is known by her title. Multiple users are stating they have never heard or seen her title used to refer to her. She appears to be referred to more in the link provided as Dame rather than Lady or Barroness--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Response - in the link provided, she is referred to in 9 of 9 examples of google results as Baroness. That's because this is a search in the google news archive starting from January of this year (a relevant time period, as she was just ennobled last year) for "Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson". It is true that some of them also refer to her as "Dame", but that's not really relevant. Under WP:NCPEER guidelines, we only avoid the title if she is "almost exclusively" known without it. She does not meet the exception and so leaving the article where it is makes the most sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply - I believe that if NC:PEER dictates and overrides what the majority of people here view as the common name and the name which she gained her notability under, then NC:PEER needs either serious reforming or total abolition. I am still firmly of the view that she is most commonly know by the vast majority of people without her ennobled title. There is also no need of any kind for disambiguation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - far more notable under her pre-peerage name.--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.