Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Sarah Jane Brown: There is ''zero'' basis for using '''Sarah Jane Brown''' as the title of this article. |
|||
Line 627: | Line 627: | ||
*** I agree that the ''media'' does not generally use her middle name. The claim that this is ''not actually her name'' has been gone over in great detail in previous RMs. Please stop stating your ''totally unsubstantiated opinion'' that this is literally not her name as fact. You have been repeatedly challenged on this before and have never provided any evidence of this, [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/aug/03/uk.politicalnews2 while evidence ''has'' been provided about Jane] (and not John or Horatio or whatever). [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
*** I agree that the ''media'' does not generally use her middle name. The claim that this is ''not actually her name'' has been gone over in great detail in previous RMs. Please stop stating your ''totally unsubstantiated opinion'' that this is literally not her name as fact. You have been repeatedly challenged on this before and have never provided any evidence of this, [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/aug/03/uk.politicalnews2 while evidence ''has'' been provided about Jane] (and not John or Horatio or whatever). [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
***:Obviously it is her name, I don't think that's in dispute. The main question though, is whether a reader would dismiss the article as "not the correct Sarah Brown" based on seeing her middle name, bearing in mind that it is rarely, if ever, used to describe her in any reliable sources. Compare and contrast to [[Sarah Joy Brown]], who apparently uses her middle name frequently, including on her website, making that a good choice of disambiguator. Putting the middle name in carries some implication that people will recognise that. When I first saw this article a couple of years ago, I had a slight moment of astonishment that the article pertained to *this* Sarah Brown, in a way that using the "born 1963" disambiguator would not. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 13:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
***:Obviously it is her name, I don't think that's in dispute. The main question though, is whether a reader would dismiss the article as "not the correct Sarah Brown" based on seeing her middle name, bearing in mind that it is rarely, if ever, used to describe her in any reliable sources. Compare and contrast to [[Sarah Joy Brown]], who apparently uses her middle name frequently, including on her website, making that a good choice of disambiguator. Putting the middle name in carries some implication that people will recognise that. When I first saw this article a couple of years ago, I had a slight moment of astonishment that the article pertained to *this* Sarah Brown, in a way that using the "born 1963" disambiguator would not. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 13:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
****'''Sarah ''Jane'' Brown''' is ''not'' obviously her name. The reference from {{U|SnowFire}} shows that her name ''prior to marrying GB'' was '''Sarah Jane Macaulay''' - ''that'' is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name ''after'' marrying GB became '''Sarah ''Jane'' Brown'''. By ALL accounts, ''without exception'', her name since her marriage has been and remains, simply '''Sarah Brown'''. People change their names for many reasons; marriage is one of them. Whether they retain, change or omit their middle name as part of that name change is up to them. I'm not aware of any reason to think that SB retained ''Jane'' as her middle name after marrying GB. There is ''zero'' basis for using '''Sarah Jane Brown''' as the title of this article. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 19:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Sarah Brown (businesswoman)]]==== |
====[[Sarah Brown (businesswoman)]]==== |
Revision as of 19:00, 14 February 2018
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Requested move 2 February 2018
- 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: Withdrawn. It's clear that there is a consensus to change the title[dubious – discuss], but there are many options besides the proposed title that appear to be preferred; it's just unclear which it is. We need a different, multi-choice, approach. Please see Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/table for one way to do this. В²C ☎ 22:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (education campaigner) – Sarah Brown already has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so we need to disambiguate. The current title remains problematic because her middle name is not used in reliable sources to refer to her, and it's misleading for us to use it. It is not WP:NATURALDIS ("an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"). So, I'm proposing a parenthetic disambiguator, and "education campaigner" in particular because that is what reliable sources like the Evening Standard are using ("Sarah Brown, education campaigner and wife of former PM Gordon Brown")[1]. It's also consistent with how she is introduced in the article. I think this is a good compromise that resolves the unused middle name issue in the current title, reflects usage in reliable sources, and avoids the controversial "wife of" disambiguator proposed in the past. В²C ☎ 19:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support this mediocre option for lack of better ones. Reliable sources don't use her middle name: open this search in an incognito window - https://www.google.com/search?q=sarah+jane+brown - and notice that except for our article, they're all some other Sarah Jane Brown. She doesn't use her middle name: http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/sarah-brown/ is her official page, the word "Jane" is nowhere to be found. It does, however stress that she is "a passionate advocate for global education and health issues and her work brings together the worlds of business, philanthropy, social media and charity campaigning.." which is at least close to the proposed parenthetical. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Will also support (campaigner) over the current. A modest proposal to famous people everywhere: if you must change your last name to Smith, Jones, Brown, or Johnson, can you at least simultaneously change your first name to something more distinctive? If the subject were merely Proserpina Brown or Scharlette Brown we wouldn't be having these problems! --GRuban (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- @GRuban:, where are you on Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or Sarah Brown (born 1963) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown) vs. the current or formally proposed title? --В²C ☎ 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Can support (born 1963). Sure, she's not known for being born in 1963, but no one is, and it is a common disambiguator. Am torn on (wife/spouse of) for fear of getting my GGTF card revoked. :-) No, seriously, torn. Yes, this is how she is referred to, it's a rare source that doesn't follow the first mention of her name with "wife of former prime minister". However attaching it to her name like that is offensive; whether or not it is offensive to her, and whether or not we intend it to, it will certainly offend a non-negligible number of readers, who will see it as making her secondary to her spouse in the title of her own article. There's a lot to be said for not offending people unnecessarily. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support The current title is terrible - it isn't how she's referred to at all, it implies her first name is actually the double barrelled "Sarah Jane" and clearly isn't a natural disambiguation. This alternative is better. Timrollpickering 20:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sarah Brown (born 1963) also works and solves the concerns raised below. Timrollpickering 18:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Propose more concise alternative: Sarah Brown (campaigner) per Radio Times and Mirror, etc. @Timrollpickering: @GRuban: no need for "education" to distinguish with any other campaigner (one hit for "Lib Dem trans campaigner" who was on en.wp so has WP:DABMENTION but is not generally known as campaigner it seems) and also Sarah Brown has been out and about campaigning about XYZ most recently "sexist representation of firefighters" together with the London Mayor - that isn't education. In general precision and longer dabs are a good thing per most of WP:CRITERIA but in this case Sarah Brown has a portfolio of campaigns she's been involved in since being the first spouse and if Radio Times and Mirror don't say "education campaigner" not sure why we need to. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good call. Campaigner is not only more concise and supported by the reliable sources you cite, but she self-identifies as a campaigner in her Twitter profile[2]. --В²C ☎ 21:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- On a point of information: the "first spouse" is the Duke of Edinburgh. Opera hat (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not particularly known for “education campaigning”, and without “education” is ambiguous[3]. Current is not terrible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Ambiguous with what? Is there another Sarah Brown that is a campaigner? --В²C ☎ 21:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)strikeout as SmokeyJoe's link shows the other Sarah Brown who is also a campaigner --В²C ☎ 21:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: can I suggest that you (like I did) blank out for a second the feeling of extreme fatigue from seeing a usual suspect riding one of his favourite bicycles. It was me not B2C that noted the Cambridge local councilor, but she lost her local seat in 2014 and hasn't been heard of since wheras Sarah Brown was on the Comic Relief Great British Bake-Off, which in terms of UK notability is something equivalent to simultaneously starring in "Game of Thrones" and "The Walking Dead" in the USA. That now puts Sarah several notches above Gordon in visibility. And "Sarah Jane Brown is" refers not to Sarah Brown (campaigner) but to the Welsh painter, who while not being known much outside Pembrokeshire, is still more known as "Sarah Jane Brown" than Gordon's wife is. So let's just do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- It’s regrettable that yet again the process is locked into one persons random idea. There are many possibilities, many with past support. “Campaigner” is underwhelming. Every ambitious failure can be called a “campaigner”. Other descriptors, “business”, “executive”, why are they not in the running. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was considering doing a poll like that, then I Googled her to start building a list and came upon a source referring to her as an education campaigner. Then I reviewed the intro, found it supported it too, and decided to give it a shot instead of a list of mediocre choices from which editors would have to prioritize choices based on some complex !voting scheme. What could possibly go wrong? The bottom line is that this Sarah Brown is not known as Sarah Jane Brown, is known as an education campaigner, and no other Sarah Brown is. It's a compromise. I'm not excited about it, except to the extent that it allows a reasonable way to stop referring to her in a manner that nobody else does. --В²C ☎ 22:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not excited, mediocre, and underwhelming we seem to all agree. You’ve decided that all other choices previously promoted in the archives are mediocre, and so we should all focus on one new mediocre option? Multi-choice polling, as I’d suggest like I did here is too complicated? I think scoring everybody’s serious suggestion leads to productive discussion, and all participants, including latecomers, can follow the discussion easily. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm with you, but I don't think the community is. These kinds of polls are not used much at all. Frankly I see the choices in three categories: Best but rejected repeatedly (wife of...), Unacceptable (SJB), and Mediocre (take your pick, including my proposed title). Deciding which of the mediocre titles is best, at the high risk of finding no consensus and retaining the current unacceptable title for another year, is much less palatable to me than this approach, which I think has a good chance of finally replacing the unacceptable with a mediocre. --В²C ☎ 23:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t think she is primarily known as an education campaigner. She’ll be introduced that way when campaigning on education, because ... the newspapers don’t know how to introduce her either. I still like better Sarah_Brown_(née_Macaulay), with a historical formality recalling her previous then notable name, being sufficient to overcome the WP:natural preference for the current. I don’t disagree with Guy’s strong support for a natural title over any old parenthetical disambiguation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but the problem is that she's not primarily known for anything other than being Gordon Brown's wife, a disambiguator that has been rejected repeatedly by the community. So we have to disambiguate with something that she is not primarily known for, which, by the way, includes her maiden name. In any case, not being primarily known for something is not a reasonable reason to reject a proposal in this case, since she's not primarily known for any of the viable disambiguation options. That's why they're all mediocre. --В²C ☎ 00:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I’m rejecting because it is not good enough to overcome the current, not incorrect, natural, albeit non-COMMONNAME SJB. It might be a tie, but per TITLECHANGES we don’t change without appreciable improvement. Campaigner is just too bland, and “education” doesn’t click, it’s just one of many things she gets involved with. I would be more tempted by other qualifiers, such as “business executive”, reflecting her day job, or even “social issues advocate”. She has a lot of breadth, less depth in any one thing, I still prefer disambiguating by maiden name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- While the current title is arguably natural, it's not WP:NATURAL, and that's what's relevant. And this isn't wiki lawyering. There is an important difference, and it's for the user. While an inaccurate middle name would undoubtedly be even worse, the fact that she is not known by this name, and apparently never goes by it, is very problematic. When someone searches for her on the web, they are likely to see her WP entry at the top of the list of results. Seeing Sarah Jane Brown is inaccurate. It's not inaccurate with respect to her middle name, it's inaccurate with respect to suggesting this is her recognized name. We are misinforming everyone about this. The proposed title is not misinformative in this respect. Yes, she is not only an education campaigner, but anyone looking her up will know that. But that she nor anyone but WP uses that middle name for her... that, they are unlikely to know or easily discern. Let me put it this way: If reporters started referring to her as an education campaigner, that would not be a problem; they already do that. But if our entry causes them to start referring to her as SJB, that is a problem. That's why we're supposed to reflect the real word, so we don't affect it. It's incumbent that we don't misinform, don't you agree? And, again, we're not currently misinforming about her middle name; we're misinforming that that is her name as she and others refer to her. That's just plain wrong. The proposed title is not plain wrong in any respect. And one more thing, the disambiguator is not intended to be comprehensive. If John Doe is an actor and singer, we can use either actor or singer in the disambiguator, as long is it distinguishes him from other John Does. Likewise, education campaigner adequately disambiguates her from other Sarah Browns. We're good. --В²C ☎ 02:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, B2C, we're not good. Swapping one mediocre title for another equally mediocre title is pointless. And as SmokeyJoe notes, it's contrary to WP:TITLECHANGES. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- We agree that "swapping one mediocre title for another equally mediocre title is pointless" (and contrary to WP:TITLECHANGES). We disagree that this is that kind of a swap. The current title is worse than mediocre; it is misleading because it inaccurately implies this subject is commonly known as "Sarah Jane Brown". The proposed title is not misleading; it is merely mediocre. --В²C ☎ 17:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, B2C, we're not good. Swapping one mediocre title for another equally mediocre title is pointless. And as SmokeyJoe notes, it's contrary to WP:TITLECHANGES. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- While the current title is arguably natural, it's not WP:NATURAL, and that's what's relevant. And this isn't wiki lawyering. There is an important difference, and it's for the user. While an inaccurate middle name would undoubtedly be even worse, the fact that she is not known by this name, and apparently never goes by it, is very problematic. When someone searches for her on the web, they are likely to see her WP entry at the top of the list of results. Seeing Sarah Jane Brown is inaccurate. It's not inaccurate with respect to her middle name, it's inaccurate with respect to suggesting this is her recognized name. We are misinforming everyone about this. The proposed title is not misinformative in this respect. Yes, she is not only an education campaigner, but anyone looking her up will know that. But that she nor anyone but WP uses that middle name for her... that, they are unlikely to know or easily discern. Let me put it this way: If reporters started referring to her as an education campaigner, that would not be a problem; they already do that. But if our entry causes them to start referring to her as SJB, that is a problem. That's why we're supposed to reflect the real word, so we don't affect it. It's incumbent that we don't misinform, don't you agree? And, again, we're not currently misinforming about her middle name; we're misinforming that that is her name as she and others refer to her. That's just plain wrong. The proposed title is not plain wrong in any respect. And one more thing, the disambiguator is not intended to be comprehensive. If John Doe is an actor and singer, we can use either actor or singer in the disambiguator, as long is it distinguishes him from other John Does. Likewise, education campaigner adequately disambiguates her from other Sarah Browns. We're good. --В²C ☎ 02:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I’m rejecting because it is not good enough to overcome the current, not incorrect, natural, albeit non-COMMONNAME SJB. It might be a tie, but per TITLECHANGES we don’t change without appreciable improvement. Campaigner is just too bland, and “education” doesn’t click, it’s just one of many things she gets involved with. I would be more tempted by other qualifiers, such as “business executive”, reflecting her day job, or even “social issues advocate”. She has a lot of breadth, less depth in any one thing, I still prefer disambiguating by maiden name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but the problem is that she's not primarily known for anything other than being Gordon Brown's wife, a disambiguator that has been rejected repeatedly by the community. So we have to disambiguate with something that she is not primarily known for, which, by the way, includes her maiden name. In any case, not being primarily known for something is not a reasonable reason to reject a proposal in this case, since she's not primarily known for any of the viable disambiguation options. That's why they're all mediocre. --В²C ☎ 00:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t think she is primarily known as an education campaigner. She’ll be introduced that way when campaigning on education, because ... the newspapers don’t know how to introduce her either. I still like better Sarah_Brown_(née_Macaulay), with a historical formality recalling her previous then notable name, being sufficient to overcome the WP:natural preference for the current. I don’t disagree with Guy’s strong support for a natural title over any old parenthetical disambiguation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm with you, but I don't think the community is. These kinds of polls are not used much at all. Frankly I see the choices in three categories: Best but rejected repeatedly (wife of...), Unacceptable (SJB), and Mediocre (take your pick, including my proposed title). Deciding which of the mediocre titles is best, at the high risk of finding no consensus and retaining the current unacceptable title for another year, is much less palatable to me than this approach, which I think has a good chance of finally replacing the unacceptable with a mediocre. --В²C ☎ 23:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not excited, mediocre, and underwhelming we seem to all agree. You’ve decided that all other choices previously promoted in the archives are mediocre, and so we should all focus on one new mediocre option? Multi-choice polling, as I’d suggest like I did here is too complicated? I think scoring everybody’s serious suggestion leads to productive discussion, and all participants, including latecomers, can follow the discussion easily. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was considering doing a poll like that, then I Googled her to start building a list and came upon a source referring to her as an education campaigner. Then I reviewed the intro, found it supported it too, and decided to give it a shot instead of a list of mediocre choices from which editors would have to prioritize choices based on some complex !voting scheme. What could possibly go wrong? The bottom line is that this Sarah Brown is not known as Sarah Jane Brown, is known as an education campaigner, and no other Sarah Brown is. It's a compromise. I'm not excited about it, except to the extent that it allows a reasonable way to stop referring to her in a manner that nobody else does. --В²C ☎ 22:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- It’s regrettable that yet again the process is locked into one persons random idea. There are many possibilities, many with past support. “Campaigner” is underwhelming. Every ambitious failure can be called a “campaigner”. Other descriptors, “business”, “executive”, why are they not in the running. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: can I suggest that you (like I did) blank out for a second the feeling of extreme fatigue from seeing a usual suspect riding one of his favourite bicycles. It was me not B2C that noted the Cambridge local councilor, but she lost her local seat in 2014 and hasn't been heard of since wheras Sarah Brown was on the Comic Relief Great British Bake-Off, which in terms of UK notability is something equivalent to simultaneously starring in "Game of Thrones" and "The Walking Dead" in the USA. That now puts Sarah several notches above Gordon in visibility. And "Sarah Jane Brown is" refers not to Sarah Brown (campaigner) but to the Welsh painter, who while not being known much outside Pembrokeshire, is still more known as "Sarah Jane Brown" than Gordon's wife is. So let's just do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Rename to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), because that's how she is best known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's actually my preference for that exact simple reason but efforts to title this article accordingly in the past have failed, repeatedly, and I have no reason to believe it would succeed now. In the mean time, any reasonable parenthetic disambiguation is an improvement on the current unreasonable unnatural disambiguation, so your support would be appreciated. --В²C ☎ 22:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- A spanner in the works. That suggestion is one of a few strongly rejected in the archives. The nominator should have made more mention of the well trampled options of past RMs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I did point out that the proposed title "avoids the controversial 'wife of' disambiguator proposed in the past." I was trying to avoid making the proposal too long and unwieldy as well. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose Sarah Brown (education campaigner) because it is not how she is publicly known. We may not like the fact that she is best known as Gordon's wife, but that's how it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for parenthetic disambiguation to reflect how the given topic "is publicly known". But the title should not be misleading, which the current title is. --В²C ☎ 17:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose Sarah Brown (education campaigner) because it is not how she is publicly known. We may not like the fact that she is best known as Gordon's wife, but that's how it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I did point out that the proposed title "avoids the controversial 'wife of' disambiguator proposed in the past." I was trying to avoid making the proposal too long and unwieldy as well. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. The proposed qualifier is not incorrect which, taking into account the difficulty of arriving at consensus here, is the best that can be hoped. I would certainly support the long-proposed Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or almost any other qualifier so that we could finally find an alternative to the non-WP:COMMONNAME Sarah Jane Brown. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- oppose. She is not primarily known as an education campaigner: most people coming across that title would think it refers to some other Sarah Brown.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnBlackburne: @BrownHairedGirl: so Radio Times is wrong? Seriously in this situation We have someone who is known as
- A most common: Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) per non-PC sources, Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph
- B second most common Sarah Brown (campaigner) per Radio Times, Mirror, Guardian, BBC, London Metro, London Evening Standard..
- C never known by anyone as "Sarah Jane Brown" who is a seascape painter in Pembrokeshire in UK sources.
- The fact that we cannot have A because of gender sensitivities because Calpurnia (wife of Caesar) is politically unacceptable today is not a reason for having the article under C by which name she is unrecognizable. The only "Sarah Jane Brown" in UK sources is a painter. To have this BLP perennially at the painter's name by which she is never known is what? What is the adjective to describe that? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I only commented on the original proposal as that’s the only way to come to a decision. If everyone makes their own proposal then we end up with no consensus at all and no move.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnBlackburne: right but in this case the nom has already dropped "education" and preferred (campaigner). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I only commented on the original proposal as that’s the only way to come to a decision. If everyone makes their own proposal then we end up with no consensus at all and no move.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- ....There's something else here. When this nonsense started it was nonsense frankly, Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and all UK sources were referring to Sarah Brown as (wife of Gordon Brown) (wife of the Prime Minister) and holy Wikipedia editors were being WP:DICKs about it. But Gordon Brown all but vanished from UK media after the election defeat in 2010. By 2017 Sarah Brown is now arguably more visible in popular media than he is. In the new bright holy #MeToo era to object to calling her "wife of" when (campaigner) is available is not as creepy as it was five years ago. Right now it is keeping the title at the painter's name which looks more disruptive. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Evidence of usage. I just went through the article collecting news reports post-2010, discarding primary sources and reports which don't name her. What I found in the first 50 refs contradicts the assertions about usage made above by @In ictu oculi:
- BBC, 2015: A new £1.5m study aimed at improving care for premature babies is being launched by Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown.
- Scotsman, 2015: A £1.5 million study aimed at improving care for premature babies has been launched by Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown.
- Belfast Telegraph, 2015: A £1.5 million study aimed at improving care for premature babies has been launched by Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown.
- Daily Mail, 2015: A £1.5 million study aimed at improving care for premature babies has been launched by Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown.
- Daily Mail, 2015: In his days as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown roamed the halls of parliament with a stony expression and a sharp tongue. But becoming a husband to Sarah Brown, 51
- Mirror, 2015: On the same trip is Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister and now the United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education. His wife Sarah
- In that sample, she is 100% known as GB's wife. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Yes we know that, that's how the article should be titled in the real world, but that's not acceptable to the anti-wife police on en.wikipedia. So we have to go with something in brackets. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- @In ictu oculi: I am unwilling to disengage from reality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Yes we know that, that's how the article should be titled in the real world, but that's not acceptable to the anti-wife police on en.wikipedia. So we have to go with something in brackets. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Here's the rest of the list
- Independent,2012: 2=. Sarah Brown, Campaigner. The modest queen of tweeting has had to give up the crown she won in the inaugural Twitter 100 last year. But Sarah Brown's pre-eminence remains remarkable: her transformation from Prime Minister's wife to formidable campaigner
- Forbes, 2011 In a wide-ranging interview with Sarah Brown, international advocate for global maternal and newborn health,
- Daily Record, 2015 Sarah Brown joins host of stars for The Great British Comic Relief Bake Off to keep her sons sweet. THE mum-of-two is one of 16 famous faces
- BBC 2015 [www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31103953 former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's wife Sarah. ]
- Telegraph, 2015: Sarah Brown. Wife of the former prime minister says her sons “adore the programme”
- Guardian, 2015: Gordon Brown’s wife, Sarah
- Fortune.com, 2014: Twitter handle: @SarahBrownUK Followers (as of May 28): 1.21M The socially savvy former first lady—she’s married to Gordon Brown, U.K. prime minister
- the remaining 4 refs([4], [5], [6], [7]) are all about her memoir of life in No.10, so inevitably describe her as wife. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well maybe -Sarah Brown (unmentionable) would be the solution. Interestingly none of the anti-wife police has actually turned up to this RM yet so maybe if B2C quickly pulled it and resubmitted the original title we might get away with following sources? In fact I think b2C should pull this RM anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree this nom should be withdrawn. I have never seen B2C pull a nom before, but I live in hope.
- I like the idea of Sarah Brown (unmentionable). It's where this has got to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well maybe -Sarah Brown (unmentionable) would be the solution. Interestingly none of the anti-wife police has actually turned up to this RM yet so maybe if B2C quickly pulled it and resubmitted the original title we might get away with following sources? In fact I think b2C should pull this RM anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps a review of the past might offer a perspective for the present:
- 10:46, 10 May 2007 Philip Stevens (talk | contribs) . . (5,200 bytes) (+5,200) . . (←Created page with 'Sarah Macaulay (born October 1963) is the wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and possible future [[Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom|Prime Mi...')
- 13:12, 30 June 2007 Timrollpickering (talk | contribs) m . . (5,495 bytes) (0) . . (moved Sarah Macaulay to Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife): Subject does not use her maiden name; discussion on talkpage has so far agreed torwards married name but disambiguator is debated; being bold and getting a step towards this.)
- 19:46, 13 January 2008 Therequiembellishere (talk | contribs) m . . (6,558 bytes) (0) . . (moved Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) to Sarah Brown (spouse): No one has responded and this is certainly a better name.)
- 03:48, 15 February 2010 Ucucha (talk | contribs) m . . (10,163 bytes) (0) . . (moved Sarah Brown (spouse) to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown): requested move, see talk)
- 09:33, 31 March 2010 Wikidea (talk | contribs) m . . (10,348 bytes) (0) . . (moved Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Brown (public relations): See talk.)
- 14:30, 31 March 2010 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) m . . (10,348 bytes) (0) . . (moved Sarah Brown (public relations) to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown).: move back as per concensus in talk page)
- 21:12, 31 March 2010 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) m . . (10,348 bytes) (0) . . (moved Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown): oops)
- 21:53, 26 March 2013 Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) m . . (14,654 bytes) (0) . . (Pigsonthewing moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Brown (businesswoman): better)
- 22:14, 26 March 2013 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) m . . (14,654 bytes) (0) . . (Anthony Appleyard moved page Sarah Brown (businesswoman) to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) over redirect: asked in my suer talk page)
- 14:24, 27 March 2013 Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) m . . (14,947 bytes) (0) . . (Pigsonthewing moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown: avoid sexist disambiguation)
- 14:26, 27 March 2013 Timrollpickering (talk | contribs) m . . (14,947 bytes) (0) . . (Timrollpickering moved page Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) over redirect: Revert unilateral contentious move, leave it to the RM)
- 06:00, 9 April 2013 Tom Morris (talk | contribs) m . . (14,724 bytes) (0) . . (Tom Morris moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown over redirect)
- 13:27, 9 April 2013 Timrollpickering (talk | contribs) m . . (14,724 bytes) (0) . . (Timrollpickering moved page Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) over redirect: RM was unclosed, status quo ante)
- 13:56, 22 June 2013 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) m . . (16,325 bytes) (0) . . (Tariqabjotu moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown over redirect: per move request)
- 03:11, 23 June 2013 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) m . . (16,312 bytes) (0) . . (Tariqabjotu moved page Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) over redirect: have much better things to do)
- 05:52, 23 June 2013 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) m . . (16,292 bytes) (0) . . (Tariqabjotu moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown over redirect: per move request)
- 00:55, 20 May 2015 Kraxler (talk | contribs) m . . (35,001 bytes) (0) . . (Kraxler moved page Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (born 1963): neutral article title, see discussion at the bottom of the lalk page before thinking about reverting)
- 00:58, 20 May 2015 Tarc (talk | contribs) m . . (35,001 bytes) (0) . . (Tarc moved page Sarah Brown (born 1963) to Sarah Jane Brown over redirect)
- Ultimately, the deciding factor was this lengthy and contentious discussion from June 2013 which resulted in the move to "Sarah Jane Brown", followed by an equally lengthy and contentious move review which failed to overturn the close. There was obviously no consensus, but whether the lack of consensus was sufficient for the main header to remain at "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)", also fell and still falls under no consensus.
- A long list of suggested qualifiers was offered at Archive 4 and here at Archive 5 and here at Archive 7.
- The one form that is always mentioned but has never been put to a vote is Sarah Brown (born 1963), with the "pro" being "A simple and non-controversially true disambiguator" and the "con" being nothing worse than "Rather dry". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sarah Brown (born 1963) would also be better than current. But again where are the anti-wife police? they were extremely vocal a couple of years ago, yet they haven't turned up this time. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's not an issue with this nomination, but would become one if someone put forth another Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) submission. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, among those participating, at least so far, there does appear to be a consensus for "wife of". Perhaps the best solution is to revert back to that title, at least for now, based on this consensus, and thus force yet another RM to engage the anti-wife police to help find a true consensus title. --В²C ☎ 17:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's not an issue with this nomination, but would become one if someone put forth another Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) submission. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sarah Brown (born 1963) would also be better than current. But again where are the anti-wife police? they were extremely vocal a couple of years ago, yet they haven't turned up this time. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the proposed move as she is most notable as the wife of a former Prime Minister. If "wife of Gordon Brown" or similar is considered unacceptable, I would support "born 1963". WP:NCPDAB does say "when there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth"; though this guideline relates to historical figures I don't see why it couldn't be used for living people. Opera hat (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as avoiding the reality of the situation. Move to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or Sarah Brown (born 1963) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown). I personally see nothing wrong with being known primarily as someone's spouse. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Alternatives Support As proposer, I just want to note that I too approve of Move to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown) over the current title, and even more than the title I proposed. I just didn't think they could gain consensus support based on past discussions. I'm neutral regarding the proposed title or Sarah Brown (born 1963) (she doesn't appear to be known to be born in 1963 any more than she's known to be an education campaigner); but either is better than the current title. --В²C ☎ 17:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support move to Sarah Brown (born 1963), basically all the options here aren't great- I wouldn't say she's particularly well known as a campaigner (although I am open to such a move in the future if she becomes more well known in that role), but the current title isn't how she's known either, and morally I don't think labelling her as "Gordon Brown's wife", however accurate, is appropriate. So that leaves us with Sarah Brown (born 1963). jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Making it clearer looking at the below discussion that I oppose any "wife of" name constructions. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose any “wife/spouse of” construction. She is independentlY notable. i agree that both Sarah Brown (born 1963) and the better Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) are better than the current. As noted in previous RMs and the preceding moratorium discussion, a fair discussion of the multiple alternatives is needed, but B2C has burst in with something both random and unworthy and messed the whole thing. He started a discussion that is highly susceptible to problems of clones and irrelevant alternatives. It needs to be closed, and restarted with, I suggest, an independent scoring of all serious alternatives. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Then I suggest you close it. But note, so far you are the only anti-wife editor. I personally think your "She is independently notable" comment deserves a WP:TROUT, but this would be better closed and a simple vote taken. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have opined, here and I think in every previous RM, I cannot close it. Only anti-wife? It seemed odd that the anti “wife” positions so strong in the past should be silent, but I thinking t an be attributed to the “wife of” option not being formally listed upfront, and consequently not being a possible valid outcome of this discussion. I think a fair close has to consider the results of every previous RM discussion. TROUT? Can you explain? The other “wife of” articles mentioned, Shakespeare, Caesar, they are spinout articles, not independent notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- A Trout because you're taking a moral stance against the British press for mentioning the unmentionable dark secret of Sarah Brown (her sshhh.. husband) and a second trout for thinking that those Roman women were somehow a different species from modern political spouses. This article title is f-ed up and f-ed about not because we all don't know that she's best known as wife of a PM, but because it is somehow morally wrong to admit it. Despite the UK newspapers not having bricks thrown through their windows and death threats for doing just that. Wikipedia isn't the place to socially reengineer reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly: Wikipedia isn't the place to socially reengineer reality. --В²C ☎ 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think that’s nonsense. Press commentary style is at the low end of quality sourcing and should be almost ignored. For the historical wives, their source-based notability is clearly derived from their husband. Also nonsense is the argument that the current title is misleading. Wikipedia editors’ affection for COMMONNAME titling decisions does not mean that titles assert that the title is a COMMONNAME. Her middle name is Jane, the current title is correct, and is more correct than B2C’s proposed title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly: Wikipedia isn't the place to socially reengineer reality. --В²C ☎ 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- A Trout because you're taking a moral stance against the British press for mentioning the unmentionable dark secret of Sarah Brown (her sshhh.. husband) and a second trout for thinking that those Roman women were somehow a different species from modern political spouses. This article title is f-ed up and f-ed about not because we all don't know that she's best known as wife of a PM, but because it is somehow morally wrong to admit it. Despite the UK newspapers not having bricks thrown through their windows and death threats for doing just that. Wikipedia isn't the place to socially reengineer reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have opined, here and I think in every previous RM, I cannot close it. Only anti-wife? It seemed odd that the anti “wife” positions so strong in the past should be silent, but I thinking t an be attributed to the “wife of” option not being formally listed upfront, and consequently not being a possible valid outcome of this discussion. I think a fair close has to consider the results of every previous RM discussion. TROUT? Can you explain? The other “wife of” articles mentioned, Shakespeare, Caesar, they are spinout articles, not independent notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- NOTE: This is SmokeyJoe's second Oppose !vote in this discussion. --В²C ☎ 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note that it is an “Oppose” to a second independent counter proposal appearing from others mid-discussion. Every independent proposal needs and independent response from each participant. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Then I suggest you close it. But note, so far you are the only anti-wife editor. I personally think your "She is independently notable" comment deserves a WP:TROUT, but this would be better closed and a simple vote taken. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Propose new refinement: Sarah Brown (charity campaigner). This is broader than "education campaigner", encompassing the variety of all her other charity work, and it is less ambiguous/obscure than just "campaigner". Her official website describes her as engaged in "charity campaigning" in bold letters, and the term seems to have some recent currency in the UK, even being applied (in retrospect) by the BBC to to H. G. Wells.--Pharos (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- No. Yet again, a proposal to move this article to a new one that is not recognizable to anyone. Just call her Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) because that's what she's best known for. I closed the last move on this subject, and I suggested that a new RM should be started for "wife of Gordon Brown" but it still hasn't happened. Well maybe it should. All this taking offence is just OR really, because most reliable sources are perfectly happy to describe her as the wife of Gordon. If we were America, she'd be called the First Lady (which in itself simply means the wife of the president), but we do'nt have any such title so saying she's his wife will do just fine. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This is probably the best spot.
The WP:RM in this section was closed for a reason, that reason was certainly not to continue the discussion without seeking wider input (via the WP:RM system). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The result of the move request was: Pulled per request. Red Slash 13:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) – Let's be real; her notability and recognizability come almost exclusively from being Gordon's wife. There's nothing wrong with that! Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) and many, many other historical people have similar titles. Let's name this article correctly, highlighting the part of her life that she is indubitably best known for. Red Slash 12:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
|
Next step?
This section was a work area to prepare the RM below. All done, so hatting. --В²C ☎ 21:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So my table idea has not generated much enthusiasm. See Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table. I think the other way to go is a generic RM, but instead of offering a particular new choice, listing all reasonable candidates, and asking participants to rate their choices any way they wish, verbally, numerically, and explain their reasoning. The idea is for each participant to express what they favor, which are acceptable, which are unacceptable, and why, in whatever way that works, and which makes the most acceptable choice to the community as obvious as possible. I think the first step is to make sure we have a comprehensive list. Here's what I offer: (DRAFT) Requested move XX February 2018 (DRAFT)NOTE: This is just a DRAFT for discussion/suggestions, for now. Actual official RM proposal coming after we hammer out all the details here. Sarah Jane Brown → TBD – The obvious and ideal title for this article, Sarah Brown, is ambiguous, and so we shouldn't use it because this article's subject is arguably not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. The current title disambiguating using her middle name remains problematic because her middle name is not used in reliable sources to refer to her, and it's misleading for us to use it because it is not WP:NATURALDIS ("an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"). While the last RM (above, withdrawn) established there is consensus to change this title, it's unclear which alternative the community prefers. So, we've constructed the table below with all of the suggestions made previously that will hopefully allow us to make this determination. Special multi-choice RM Instructions:
--В²C ☎ 19:05, XX February 2018 (UTC) Discussion about DRAFT proposalAnything other possibilities to add to this list? I'll give it a day or two, and then create an RM proposal accordingly, unless someone has a better idea. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, I can relate to your cynicism, but I don't share it. One reason is because few here have a strong first choice. Many seem to feel much more strongly about what this title should not be. Those two camps are: 1) it should not be Sarah Jane Brown and 2) it should not be "wife of". Those in the first camp do seem to tend to favor "wife of", but I think it's fair to say most would far prefer any of the other reasonable options as well, over SJB. So I think there is an optimal choice, and we should be able to find a mechanism to find it. I'll start a subsection here to begin drafting how we should word the proposal. --В²C ☎ 18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC) I've drafted a proposal above and added a "Code" column to the table to make the various choices easier to reference. Any comments/suggestions about the wording and special instructions? Clear enough? Codes okay? Anything else? --В²C ☎ 19:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC) LOL, no wonder this felt like a deja vu [8]. --В²C ☎ 19:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Added "Already the current title" as another Pro for Sarah Jane Brown and added "except for WP:PRECISION" to "Clear WP:CRITERIA winner" for Sarah Brown (since it fails to unambiguously identify the topic). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Would it be too cumbersome to consider Sarah Brown (spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) or Sarah Brown (spouse of the Prime Minister)? That would be even more consistent with the Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article, and would more describe a role than a particular husband. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
|
Requested move 8 February 2018
Sarah Jane Brown → ? – The obvious and ideal title for this article, Sarah Brown, is ambiguous, and so we shouldn't use it because this article's subject is arguably not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. The current title disambiguating using her middle name remains problematic because her middle name is not used in reliable sources to refer to her, and it's misleading for us to use it because it is not WP:NATURALDIS ("an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"). While the last RM (above, withdrawn) established there is consensus to change this title, it's unclear which alternative the community prefers. So, we've constructed the table below with all of the suggestions made previously that will hopefully allow us to make this determination.
Special multi-choice RM Instructions:
- Please specify which of the choices below are acceptable and unacceptable as titles of this article, and why.
- Please also specify priorities among the acceptable in a manner that will aid the closer in best identifying the community's preferred choice. One way to do this is to assign a 0-10 point value, optionally with decimals for more granularity (e.g., 8.5) to each one. But most importantly remember to explain your reasoning.
- Base on previous RMs, it's likely that "Sarah Jane Brown" and "Sarah Brown (wife of ...)" are likely to each be be strongly opposed by many, so please be clear about your preferences other than these. В²C ☎ 21:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- You can share your thoughts in one traditional !vote comment in the #Survey section, or the "extended discussion" area at the bottom on the Survey section that has a separate sub-section for each choice. --В²C ☎ 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Title choices
Title | Code | Pros | Cons |
---|---|---|---|
Sarah Jane Brown | SJB | Jane was her middle name prior to marriage when she sometimes went by Sarah Jane Macaulay. Already the current title. | Wrongly implies she uses and is known by this name; there is no evidence that it's ever used by her or anyone else, besides WP. |
Sarah Brown | SB | WP:COMMONNAME. Clear WP:CRITERIA winner except for WP:PRECISION. Unusual case might justify WP:IARing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. | Ambiguous. Presumes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which this topic arguably is not. Note: requires moving dab page at Sarah Brown to Sarah Brown (disambiguation) |
Sarah Brown (born 1963) | b1963 | Simple/objective | Not known for her year of birth |
Sarah Brown (advocate) | ad | Widely described as an advocate including in this Daily Beast bio. ("Sarah Brown is a passionate advocate for global health and education issues around the world.") | Not known primarily for this |
Sarah Brown (campaigner) | camp | Widely identified as a campaigner including on own Twitter feed. | Another Sarah Brown is arguably also a campaigner. Not known primarily for this. |
Sarah Brown (charity campaigner) | chcamp | Specifies type of campaigner she is. | Longer than camp and ad. Not known primarily for this. Not just a charity campaigner. |
Sarah Brown (charity director) | chdir | Provides title rather than describing function. | Longer than camp and ad. Not known primarily for this |
Sarah Brown (education campaigner) | edcamp | Specifies type of campaigner she is. | Not known primarily for this. Not just an education campaigner. |
Sarah Brown (health and education advocate) | head | What she is most known for besides being spouse of Prime Minister | Very long, too much detail. Not known primarily for this |
Sarah Brown (health and education campaigner) | hecamp | What she is most known for besides being spouse of Prime Minister | Even longer. Not known primarily for this. "Campaigner" could be misinterpreted as active in political (voting) campaigns. |
Sarah Brown (Macaulay) | mac | Simple use of maiden name for disambiguation. Original title was Sarah Macaulay. | Even when Sarah Macaulay article was created in 2007 she was already married and referred to as "Sarah Brown" in reliable sources; not known prior to marriage to GB. |
Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) | nee | Neutral distinctive qualifier | Not known for her maiden name. |
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) | wife | Primarily known for this. How WP:RS refer to her. It's not our job to impose a sense of political correctness beyond that used by reliable sources. | Offensive or belittling to some. |
Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown) | spouseGB | Primarily known for this. WP:CONSISTENT with Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#Living spouses of former Prime Ministers. Perhaps less offensive than "wife". | Offensive or belittling to some. |
Sarah Brown (spouse of the Prime Minister) | spousePM | Primarily notable for this. WP:CONSISTENT with Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Describes a role rather than a particular husband. Perhaps less offensive than "wife" and "spouseGB". | Offensive or belittling to some. |
Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister) | spousepm | Primarily notable for this. More concise description than spousePM using common noun. | Offensive or belittling to some. |
Sarah Brown (UK) | UK | Her Twitter handle is SarahBrownUK. She’s the primary Sarah Brown in the UK. Most concise parenthetic dab. | Ambiguous with Sarah Brown (politician) |
Sarah Brown (businesswoman) | BUS | Founding a business, Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, is the first thing that made her a public figure. | Not primarily known for this. |
Sarah Brown (public relations) | PR | Her original career was in public relations. | Not primarily known for this. |
Survey
banter |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As nom... NOTE: It helps to have the table open in a separate window while you're doing this... I still think wife is the best choice because that's how sources refer to her almost unanimously. I think we get close to that perhaps without as much offensiveness with spousePM, so that's my second choice, and spouseGB my third. Of the parenthetic disambiguations I think ad (Sarah Brown (advocate)) is best. It's WP:CONCISE and how she's widely described in sources. I think it's better than camp because the meaning of "campaigner" can be misinterpreted, so ad is my 4th choice. Of the remaining parenthetic disambiguations, all of which are preferred to SJB, which is the only candidate I think is unacceptable, mac is probably best for it's simplicity and accuracy, my 5th choice. If I have to pick any beyond that, I'd go with head before the others, as this is most descriptive of what she is known for, besides being the spouse of the PM. The others are all okay, and much better than SJB. --В²C ☎ 22:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Striking original !vote as I've participated in the "extended discussion" method below. --В²C ☎ 17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)- Oppose all "wife of..." and "spouse of..." formulations. Not because they are "offensive", as the table says (I suppose this is what happens when someone who supports an option writes the "con" section), but because it strikes me as a belittling way to disambiguate a living person. Also because this exact suggestion has been rejected several times previously, and previous opinions should not be ignored just because those editors may not be active at the moment. No opinion on any of the other options, because since they are not belittling a living person, and because no matter what we do it will be imperfect, I don't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. Give the closer a break. If you had to pick a favorite... what would it be? --В²C ☎ 22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose Sarah Brown (born 1963), not because it's actually my favorite - I promise I don't care enough to have one - but because, as I said in a thread above yesterday, it seems to me that I've seen lots of people, over time, say it's not their first choice but that they could live with it. I doubt there's a similar widespread feeling about any of the other disambiguators. If choosing this would mean that no one would be outraged enough to feel compelled to start RM discussion #23 (or whatever we're up to) as soon as this one closes, i say let's do it and end this Sisyphean question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for exemplifying what I think we're going to have to do to get this resolved. --В²C ☎ 23:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose Sarah Brown (born 1963), not because it's actually my favorite - I promise I don't care enough to have one - but because, as I said in a thread above yesterday, it seems to me that I've seen lots of people, over time, say it's not their first choice but that they could live with it. I doubt there's a similar widespread feeling about any of the other disambiguators. If choosing this would mean that no one would be outraged enough to feel compelled to start RM discussion #23 (or whatever we're up to) as soon as this one closes, i say let's do it and end this Sisyphean question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. Give the closer a break. If you had to pick a favorite... what would it be? --В²C ☎ 22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sarah Brown (born 1963) seems the best way forward. Timrollpickering 00:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Sarah Brown (née Macaulay); then Sarah Brown (born 1963), over the current Sarah Jane Brown, and reject any wife/spouse/partner constructions for the same reasons they were previously rejected, and reject occupations/characteristic disambiguators as the are too isolated amongst her large breadth of activities to be recognisable.
"née Macaulay" adds much more to recognisability, as all of the pre-marriage dating sources name her as Sarah Macaulay For example, "Chancellor Gordon Brown and his long-time girlfriend Sarah Macaulay have been married in a private family service.". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC) - My current preference would be wife or spousePM, since I think those are the most informative to clearly tell the reader who the article is about, and they are not attempting to "socially reengineer reality". She is most well-known for being Gordon Brown's wife, and that is simply the fact of the situation, and I don't see that as a big problem. Many independent reliable sources have also frequently identified her that way, without any apparent political or derogatory tilt when they do so (AFAIK). I don't like the ambiguity that would result from "SB". I don't like the occupation-based ones since they seem to be trying to just manufacture some substitute role identifier that is not the obvious role for which she is more well known. I don't mind b1963, nee, and SJB since they seem like relatively straightforward person identifiers. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- How about Sarah Brown (UK)? Only one other Sarah Brown is British, and this one is primary topic between those two. The politician can be taken care of with a {{distinguish}} hatnote. Station1 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sarah Brown (UK)? Like https://twitter.com/SarahBrownUK? I think it too ambiguous with Sarah Brown (politician), and a bit presumptuous. However, if you realy think so, maybe it should be added to the table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- It’s a bit late but I added UK to the list. --В²C ☎ 14:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- The idea of a "primary topic between these two" is undesirable as incomplete disambiguation. Please see WP:INCOMPDAB (and perhaps WP:PDAB). Using a country name as a disambiguator for a person also seems a bit odd to me – I don't remember seeing it before (although Wikipedia has so many articles that it probably does exist somewhere). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think merely being from the UK is sufficient reason to use that as a disambiguator, so it's not really ambiguous. As the spouse of the former PM, this Sarah Brown represents the UK in a remarkable way. That's why it makes sense for her to use the Twitter handle SarahBrownUK - it wouldn't make sense for any other Sarah Brown to do so. Same with UK as a disambiguator; it only makes sense for this one. It's not ambiguous. She's not the primary topic for this, she's the only topic for it. --В²C ☎ 18:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sarah Brown (UK)? Like https://twitter.com/SarahBrownUK? I think it too ambiguous with Sarah Brown (politician), and a bit presumptuous. However, if you realy think so, maybe it should be added to the table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- First choice is wife, as stated above. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, however much people think it's offensive or belittling to call her that. But since that option seems to have been bludgeoned off the table, I suppose b1963 would be the best compromise we can come up with, so support b1963 as second choice. At least nobody would be likely to think it *wasn't* referring to Gordon's wife, which some of the other obscure titles considered might do. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that "that option seems to have been bludgeoned off the table". 3 editors do not a bludgeon make. Jcc Floquenbeam and SmokeyJoe have declared themselves to be resolutely opposed to wife. But we don't normally in RMs have to take notice of anything less than 50% of editors, particularly in this case when the overwhelming editors all seem quite comfortable with Radio Times, Telegraph, BBC, use of "wife". Even The Guardian uses "wife". In business, in academia, in any other collegiate field when 3 people have a view against the group the usual process is to go ahead. If it was 7 or 8 editors that would be a different issue, but it appears to be 3. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think "resolutely opposed to wife" are the right words. I have resolved that "wife of" is undesirable, slightly worse that the current title. It alludes to derived notability, which is not true, there are enough quality sources preceding her association with Gordon that establish notability. Shakespeare's and Caesar's wives do benefit from derived notability, tolerated because they are historical. I do however acknowledge that other editors, in past RM, were resolutely opposed, and I don't disagree with them. I think they should be advised that the previously rejected title is being revisited. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well that's fiction. But be that as it may, I do not think we should go stirring up past objectors. Time moves on. Currently we have only 3 editors objecting to description as per UK news sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fiction? I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean bland rudeness? This horse may not be dead, but it has been flogged embarrassingly. The option was formally rejected with wider participation than there has been this time. If this is seriously a proposal to overturn the previous consensus decision, previous participants must be advised. Only 3? Are you counting? It is not about counting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think "fiction" may be referring to notable fictional characters such as wives in Shakespearean plays (e.g., Lady MacBeth), not saying that some of the remarks here are fiction. Not sure though. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Cornelia (wife of Caesar), Pompeia (wife of Caesar), Calpurnia (wife of Caesar), and Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) were all real people, or at least I can find no suggestion that anyone doubts it (although I have heard doubts that William Shakespeare was real, that he was mistaken for anoth man o fthe same name). Something common amongst these four women is that they are not recorded as having done anything notable short of marrying their husbands and bearing their husbands children. This is not the case for Sarah Brown. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is no debate in the history of Wikipedia where the voices of people in past discussions from years ago are assumed to still hold sway. If that were the case we'd never make any progress at all. The repeated shutting down of attempts to gain consensus for "wife of Gordon Brown", (including the premature closing the above discussion on exactly that), citing "the archives" as a rationale, is a little frustrating to me, to be honest. — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Past discussions do hold sway. AfD discussions auto-link to previous AfD discussions on the same page. DRV repeat discussions are expected to explicitly address the previous, and there has to be a good reason to repeat the same discussion. Here, the relevant discussion was Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_2#Requested_move_6_(June_2013), in which User:SlimVirgin successfully made the case, according to closer User:Tariqabjotu that Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is probably close to the name that our policies would recommend (the most common name + a description as to what the person is known for), but there is obvious consensus that this name is just bad. The MRV, closed by User:Cuchullain was very strong in upholding that point. Although, I do read a vocal minority in opposition. To avoid the perception of gamesmanship, all past participants, of RM#6 in particular, and probably its MRV because a lot of on point comment was made there, should be invited to this presumably hopefully final RM. At Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_9#Requested_move_2_December_2016, your close included a dubious third sentence, confusing "vocal minority" with "groundswell". I will not be ripping my hair out if this goes to "wife of Gordon Brown", but the archives archive clear divergent strong opinions, and I oppose it being slipped in, reversing a past explicitly asserted consensus, without notifications. It is a matter of proper procedure, not of being bound by a past decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: would you please rewrite or strike the part of your post that mentions me? The way you've worded it sounds as though I argued that "wife of" was what our policies recommend, but that others determined this was bad. Both clauses are misleading. (You could add "that" before "there is obvious consensus", i.e. "but that there is", which would help, or rewrite in some other way.) SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Past discussions do hold sway. AfD discussions auto-link to previous AfD discussions on the same page. DRV repeat discussions are expected to explicitly address the previous, and there has to be a good reason to repeat the same discussion. Here, the relevant discussion was Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_2#Requested_move_6_(June_2013), in which User:SlimVirgin successfully made the case, according to closer User:Tariqabjotu that Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is probably close to the name that our policies would recommend (the most common name + a description as to what the person is known for), but there is obvious consensus that this name is just bad. The MRV, closed by User:Cuchullain was very strong in upholding that point. Although, I do read a vocal minority in opposition. To avoid the perception of gamesmanship, all past participants, of RM#6 in particular, and probably its MRV because a lot of on point comment was made there, should be invited to this presumably hopefully final RM. At Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_9#Requested_move_2_December_2016, your close included a dubious third sentence, confusing "vocal minority" with "groundswell". I will not be ripping my hair out if this goes to "wife of Gordon Brown", but the archives archive clear divergent strong opinions, and I oppose it being slipped in, reversing a past explicitly asserted consensus, without notifications. It is a matter of proper procedure, not of being bound by a past decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think "fiction" may be referring to notable fictional characters such as wives in Shakespearean plays (e.g., Lady MacBeth), not saying that some of the remarks here are fiction. Not sure though. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fiction? I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean bland rudeness? This horse may not be dead, but it has been flogged embarrassingly. The option was formally rejected with wider participation than there has been this time. If this is seriously a proposal to overturn the previous consensus decision, previous participants must be advised. Only 3? Are you counting? It is not about counting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well that's fiction. But be that as it may, I do not think we should go stirring up past objectors. Time moves on. Currently we have only 3 editors objecting to description as per UK news sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think "resolutely opposed to wife" are the right words. I have resolved that "wife of" is undesirable, slightly worse that the current title. It alludes to derived notability, which is not true, there are enough quality sources preceding her association with Gordon that establish notability. Shakespeare's and Caesar's wives do benefit from derived notability, tolerated because they are historical. I do however acknowledge that other editors, in past RM, were resolutely opposed, and I don't disagree with them. I think they should be advised that the previously rejected title is being revisited. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that "that option seems to have been bludgeoned off the table". 3 editors do not a bludgeon make. Jcc Floquenbeam and SmokeyJoe have declared themselves to be resolutely opposed to wife. But we don't normally in RMs have to take notice of anything less than 50% of editors, particularly in this case when the overwhelming editors all seem quite comfortable with Radio Times, Telegraph, BBC, use of "wife". Even The Guardian uses "wife". In business, in academia, in any other collegiate field when 3 people have a view against the group the usual process is to go ahead. If it was 7 or 8 editors that would be a different issue, but it appears to be 3. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (& move DAB page to Sarah Brown (disambiguation))
- Neutral – not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but since nearly all other options bend the rules one way or another, this way of bending them seems, to me at least, more or less acceptable, especially as this one is over-all the shortest (most concise although least precise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – displacing the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not justified. --В²C ☎ 17:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - not the primary topic, there are lots and lots of Sarah Browns. --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral - as an WP:IAR option, it does have tempting potential for dealing with the whole problem in one go. Timrollpickering 19:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - as the easiest option, since she is probably the most recognisable person with this name, and because we can't decide how to identify her. This is Paul (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unacceptable. Not the PrimaryTopic for “Sarah Brown”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning Oppose, but not Strongly Oppose, since the only one I strongly oppose is "Sarah Jane Brown". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - not primary topic. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support 3rd preference as an option that would hopefully end this debate for once and for all. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sarah Joy Brown is around the same level of notability, and wins on page views. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not the Primary Topic, why are we even discussing this, not going to happen. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (advocate)
- Oppose – the "advocate" qualifier lacks precision. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — I think this is a great option. She's the only Sarah Brown who is known as an advocate, and she is widely known as an advocate, so I don't see any lack of precision problem here. And it's concise and simple. --В²C ☎ 17:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version. --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose An advocate is a lawyer in Scotland and given the strong connection the Browns have to Scotland it's confusing. Timrollpickering 18:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Acceptable, but too vague, begs “for what”, there are better options. Maybe slightly better than the current. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Appears to be a correct description of one who is a supporter, champion, spokesperson for or backer of causes. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for same reason as Timrollpickering. In Scotland (where she lives) "advocate" has the specific meaning of a lawyer, equivalent to a barrister elsewhere, which she is not. Opera hat (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - absolutely not. She isn't primarily known for this! Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (born 1963)
- Strongly oppose – per WP:NCPDAB, "born <year>" cannot be used without another qualifier (when that other qualifier applies to two people with the same name). This one really doesn't fly imho, too much weight on the birth date of a living person (as if wanting to stress their age) is, as far as I'm concerned, not the way we should go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- The remark above about "too much weight on the birth date of a living person (as if wanting to stress their age)" leads me to think nee may be a better choice than this one, although I don't oppose this one. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please consider appending your opinions where they belong in these subsections, which is not really appended to !votes of others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I already objected to your subsection structure, and now you're giving me a hard time for not fitting my comments into it rigidly enough? I reserve the right to choose "the way I contributed to the discussion", and I think this is a very good place to point out that I thought one of your comments was insightful. Remember when you said "I'll respect your approach"? I'm trying to support what you said here. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please consider appending your opinions where they belong in these subsections, which is not really appended to !votes of others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- The remark above about "too much weight on the birth date of a living person (as if wanting to stress their age)" leads me to think nee may be a better choice than this one, although I don't oppose this one. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose — While it is a distinguishing characteristic, her birth year is not something that is widely known about her. Not a good choice for disambiguation at all. --В²C ☎ 17:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version. WP:NCPDAB also says "For historical figures when there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death." Historical is debatable, but it's clear there is no dominant qualifier. --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - accurate, doesn't use a confusing term, doesn't imply a name that isn't in use, doesn't have people screaming fury if it's used. Timrollpickering 18:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support yep, I outlined my reasoning above but to state it again, I think that this is a good neutral descriptor where there isn't one single descriptor- none of the below persuade me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Good, although not best. This is a standard real world method for disambiguating biographies. Weakness is that the year means little to most, although it will help a little in choosing from a list. Better than the current because few know her middle name, but most have some idea of her age. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning Support. Last choice among parenthetical qualifiers, but an acceptable one, since it is correct. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - this type of disambiguation device is only used as a last resort, and there is one much better parenthetical we could use instead. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support as 4th preference, as an accurate and uncontroversial descriptor. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. No need when we can use her name. SarahSV (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Not my first choice, but out of those that have a chance of passing, it seems like the best choice. Also matches Barbara Bush (born 1981), which is another person best known by their family association to a world leader. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. It is neutral disambiguation of last resort that is indisputably true. There's no expectation that any disambig will entirely tell you about the topic; that's what the disambig page is for. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support as second choice.Kevin Dewitt Always ping 13:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (campaigner)
- Oppose – the "campaigner" qualifier has the same problem as the "advocate" qualifier: too vague. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose — Not nearly as good as advocate. I think "campaigner" is too easy to misinterpret to mean "one who campaigns in elections". --В²C ☎ 17:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support - better than the current version, but vague. --GRuban (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - it's a bit vague as "campaigning" covers many bases and Sarah Brown (politician) is also a campaigner. Timrollpickering 18:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per B2C, easily misinterpreted. Too vague. Worse than “advocate”, worse than current. Unacceptable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Close enough to "advocate", which is somewhat preferable, but "campaigner" is also acceptable. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - absolutely not. She isn't primarily known for this! Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown, per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)
- Oppose – better than the unqualified "campaigner", but still worse than the current middle name disambiguator, for the vagueness of campaigner (makes it sound like someone who became famous for something they do in their hobby time). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support — better than unqualified "campaigner" because it's not subject to misinterpretation. but I think "advocate" conveys similar meaning more concisely. --В²C ☎ 17:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version. --GRuban (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support more accurate description than "charity director", which she isn't. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Very weak support. Is known for this, but not most known for this so might confuse some. Better than the current, worse than standard disambiguation options of birth year and and previous (notable) name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. More specific than simply "campaigner" or "advocate" and undoubtedly a correct description. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - absolutely not. She isn't primarily known for this! Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown, per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (charity director)
- Support – best fit for the current WP:NCP guidance, their job for which they are known in their own right. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — even better than "charity campaigner" because it's an occupation description. --В²C ☎ 17:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version. --GRuban (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version, it links to a specific role rather than general activity. Timrollpickering 19:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose director implies she's involved in the day to day management which I can't see evidence of- president, sure, or campaigner, but not someone directly running it. I'm happy to be corrected here though. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, she's president, not director, of Theirworld. Hmm. Francis Schonken? --В²C ☎ 19:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Afaics, from that page, she's:
- Member of the advisory board
- Chair of the board of trustees
- One of the "Theirworld Projects Limited directors" (emphasis added)
- President of Theirworld (with other people qualified as directors and honorary president)
- As a member of what is called "Advisory board, trustees and directors", and being designated "director" in at least one instance on that page, the director qualification seems correct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Afaics, from that page, she's:
- Indeed, she's president, not director, of Theirworld. Hmm. Francis Schonken? --В²C ☎ 19:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per jcc. Erroneous. Unacceptable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Again, undoubtedly correct. Is indeed known for support of charities, whether as an advocate, campaigner or director. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - absolutely not. She isn't primarily known for this! Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown, per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – I added some external references for the "charity director" qualifier below, in the #Sarah Brown (activist and prime minister's spouse) subsection of this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (education campaigner)
- Oppose – "education" narrows it down too much (she campaigns for other things too); "campaigner" too vague, per above. The combination of two wrongs (too narrow + too vague) does not make something acceptable here: too much of a double mismatch for that. Although two words not overly long for a disambiguator. Also, the disambiguator that has been used before the "wife of ..." for as long as I know on the Sarah Brown (disambiguation) page (nobody ever objected to that disambiguator there. Not ever). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose — Too narrow. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version. --GRuban (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too narrow a selection of what she’s known for. Too mediocre an improvement, if that, over the current. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. If this form is chosen, it is also apparently a correct description. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - absolutely not. She isn't primarily known for this! Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown, per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (health and education advocate)
- Oppose – despite the four words still too vague ("advocate") combined with too specific ("health and education"): two partial mismatches still combine into a bigger mismatch (per "education campaigner" etc, see above). Also terribly fails WP:CRITERIA #4 (i.e. conciseness). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose — unnecessarily long - just advocate is better. When an actor is disambiguated with "actor" we don't have to specify what kind of actor, etc. But, it's not wrong. --В²C ☎ 17:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version. --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - it makes her sound like a lawyer specialising in chasing schools and hospitals. Timrollpickering 19:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Three words, still failing to capture a broad picture, fails CONCISE. She’s not particularly well known for any one of these words, and little better for all three, she is simply too broad for this sort of attempt. It’s becoming a list of epithets. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Again, a correct description. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - This doesn't distinguish her well. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown, per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (health and education campaigner)
- Oppose – more of the vagueness/narrowness mismatching combination in a conciseness-defying mismatch (see comments to other "health & whatnot" disambiguators above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose — unnecessarily long - just advocate (not just campaigner) is better. --В²C ☎ 17:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version. --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - it's a bit vague but is at least an improvement on the current. Timrollpickering 19:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Worse than “health and education advocate”. Multiple epithets from a long selection, still fails to capture the person, fails CONCISE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Unfailingly, whether an "advocate" or "campaigner", she is well described by those words. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - absolutely not. She isn't primarily known for this! Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown, per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (Macaulay)
- Oppose – per WP:NCPDAB: "Try to avoid ... anything capitalized ..." is one of the recommendations for the term(s) in the parenthetical disambiguator. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think the capitalization is really an issue – we do it all the time. Note that the section you referred to has some examples of that, which it seems to say are OK: "Roger Taylor (Queen drummer) and Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer)". —BarrelProof (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Still, avoided if possible, thus we have Edward Smith (sea captain), not Edward Smith (Titanic) nor Edward Smith (captain of the Titanic). For the two Roger Taylor (drummer)s, after tossing around quite a bit, the exception to the recommendation seemed reasonable: in the current case I see no reason to call an exception to the recommendation, when reasonable solutions without capitalization in the parenthetical disambiguator are possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think the capitalization is really an issue – we do it all the time. Note that the section you referred to has some examples of that, which it seems to say are OK: "Roger Taylor (Queen drummer) and Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer)". —BarrelProof (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support - I don't think maiden name disambiguation is a bad idea, but it would be better in a case where the subject was notable prior to the marriage and she was well recognized for the maiden name. --В²C ☎ 17:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support - better than the current version, but if we're going to do maiden name, I'd prefer nee; just like "Sarah Brown (1963)" the extra word of explanation is useful. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - not very clear without nee. Timrollpickering 18:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Good option, based on the hypothetical possibility that people don’t like the little old foreign word “nee”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning Support, but still one of the least favorite qualifiers since it does not describe who the person is. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - She isn't known as this! Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as the year of birth option is better than this one, she was not notable before her marriage. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. We don't put alternative names in disambiguators. Football (soccer) was an example, but was rightly moved some years ago. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Acceptable: See my comment in the next subsection. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)
- Oppose – has a capitalized word in the disambiguator, and "née" may be less known to a broad readership, and it is all less concise than the "(Macaulay)" option (which I already think a bad one). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- We use capitalized terms in disambiguators all the time – e.g. with band names when disambiguating albums and songs. It doesn't really seem unusual. (See, however, the further remarks at #Sarah Brown (Macaulay) by Francis Schonken about that.) To me, "née" seems like a nice little word – although not common in everyday conversation. Redirects would also be used, of course. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Re. "We use capitalized terms in disambiguators all the time" – true: the recommendation to avoid it in parenthetical disambiguators is specific to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) (WP:NCP). Afaik it is the only naming conventions guideline that recommends to avoid it. Other naming conventions (e.g. WP:MUSICSERIES) specifically recommend a capitalized parenthetical disambiguator.
- Nonetheless the principle to avoid it as much as possible in article titles of pages which are a biography of a single person is, as far as I'm concerned, sound. There are plenty of reasons for that, but this is hardly the place to elaborate on why or how it came to be adopted in the WP:NCP guidance. Suffice to say that, afaik, this is one of the oldest and thus far one of the least contested recommendations of that guidance. WT:NCP would be the place for further discussion if the principle is contested.
- In this case a capitalized term can easily be avoided in the parenthetical disambiguator. Below someone says "a description is not clear cut" – I contest that: the "charity director" description has been at the Sarah Brown disambiguation page for as long as I know, uncontested. Seems a clear-cut description to me.
- Re. ""née" seems like a nice little word" – I agree on that. I'd even say it is cute. Nonetheless I'd avoid it in a parenthetical disambiguator for the stated reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- We use capitalized terms in disambiguators all the time – e.g. with band names when disambiguating albums and songs. It doesn't really seem unusual. (See, however, the further remarks at #Sarah Brown (Macaulay) by Francis Schonken about that.) To me, "née" seems like a nice little word – although not common in everyday conversation. Redirects would also be used, of course. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support - This might be slightly better than just Macaulay because people are unlikely to know that Macaulay is her former surname; the née makes this obvious. --В²C ☎ 17:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - better than the current version. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support - with née in it, it's clear what the disambiguation refers to but she doesn't appear to have used the name Macaulay much since her marriage (and a google suggests at least the name Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications is no longer current) which makes it obscure. Using one of her predecessors as an example, I'm not sure "Norma Major (née Johnson)" would be terribly recognisable. Timrollpickering 19:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support along the lines of the born descriptor, this would be a neutral way of describing her. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. The best option. Sarah was notable, by WP standards, as Sarah Macaulay, bases in sources prior to her name change after marrying Gordon. Historically, she was Macauley for longer than not, and the article makes multiple significant mentions of Macauley and the firm named her. For many years, “Sarah Macauley” was the chancellor’s girlfriend widely reported, and including Macaulay in the title significantly adds to recognisability. Far better than the current for sure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning Support to a greater degree than the form without the "née", but still among the least favorite qualifiers. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Given that a description is not clear cut, it makes most sense to me to use her own name, so Sarah Jane Brown, Sarah (Jane) Brown, Sarah Macaulay Brown, Sarah (Macaulay) Brown, or Sarah Brown (née Macaulay). SarahSV (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC); edited 23:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- When expressing support or opposition, it is helpful to say why you have that opinion. This isn't supposed to be a vote. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - She isn't known as this. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as the year of birth option is better than this one, she was not notable before her marriage. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - this might be OK, but I prefer the year of birth, as most people do not know her maiden name. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Neither known as this, nor is it her current name. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Best of the options: In addition to being the most natural disambiguator, it is notesworthy that she founded a PR firm Hobsbawm Macaulay and worked there for about 8 years. She was also known for her work in the firm. For instance, this BBC article calls it a
high-flying public relations career
. Also notesworthy is that her LinkedIn profile uses Sarah (Macaulay) Brown. So variations on the basic idea are also acceptable. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown)
- Strong oppose – lack of conciseness, two capitalised words in the disambiguator: does neither fit WP:CRITERIA nor WP:NCPDAB very well. And indeed, "wife/spouse of ..." suggests somehow lack of interest in the person in their own right, as if it is someone to whom "Very little is known about her ..." applies (as quoted from the lead paragraph of Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare)). Fails the "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right" recommendation of WP:NCPDAB. The "spouse" qualifier is also somewhat too over-formal to my taste, that is in a context where not both "wife of" and "husband of" can apply. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, capital letters are pretty common and not much of a problem – e.g., Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer). —BarrelProof (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- See reply at #Sarah Brown (Macaulay). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, capital letters are pretty common and not much of a problem – e.g., Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer). —BarrelProof (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Accurate and reflects what she is best known for. Avoids the arguably sexist "wife of", FWIW. --В²C ☎ 17:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- When expressing support or opposition, you should say something about why you are expressing that opinion. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's all been said a thousand times. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- When expressing support or opposition, you should say something about why you are expressing that opinion. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - we have options that won't be read as defining her as secondary. --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Is not what she’s best known for, unless you are reading too many tabloids. Most of her accomplishments do not derive from being married to Gordon. Several are associated with him, but do not derive from him. “Wife of”/spouse/partner all imply subservience, which is appropriate for Shakespear’s and Caesar’s wives, not appropriate for Sarah. She is independently notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: You are entitled to your own views, but not to your own facts ... and your claim that SB is best known for something other than being GB's wife is demonstrably untrue.
In reliable sources, she is overwhelmingly known as the wife of GB. See above in the previous withdrawn RM at #BHGusageevidence, where I analysed every secondary source currently used in the article: 14 of the 17 sources explicitly introduce her as wife of GB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)- Thanks User:BrownHairedGirl, you appear correct. I’m still uneasy with this form of titling, “derivative” off someone else. Also there were some gendered issues, all fairly strongly expressed in RM#6, less so this time. I’ve been hoping to read your responses to these things. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with gender though IMHO, that just seems like an attempt by the participants in the previous RM, to find fault in something where there isn't really much fault. If Philip May wasn't at the base name I'd be perfectly happy for him to be known as Philip May (husband of Theresa May), because that's also how he is best known. Plus we already have examples of "husband" and "wife" constructs as already noted in the evidence above. To be brutally honest, I'm not actually convinced she would even have notability if not married to Brown. She's smart and independently successful, certainly, but not in a way that would give her her own article if she'd just continued her career at Hobsbawm Macaulay, which she had before she married Brown. Her article was only started in 2007, when the Wiki was already mature, and at the time when it seemed likely Brown would become PM shortly. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks User:BrownHairedGirl, you appear correct. I’m still uneasy with this form of titling, “derivative” off someone else. Also there were some gendered issues, all fairly strongly expressed in RM#6, less so this time. I’ve been hoping to read your responses to these things. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: You are entitled to your own views, but not to your own facts ... and your claim that SB is best known for something other than being GB's wife is demonstrably untrue.
- Support. Among the most specific and accurate qualifiers in describing claim to notability. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. SarahSV (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - there's no need to use "spouse" when a more precise, concise and natural alternative exists. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support as 2nd choice, wife would be more accurate but I have no strong objection to spouse instead. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - any option that indicates her relationship to Brown is a good one in my view. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Disambiguating people born after 1900 by marital status is a bad idea. At risk of derailing into discussion, the idea that "spouse of" somehow makes it better is ludicrous; the complaint isn't the word "wife", it's describing anyone as solely an appendage to someone else. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (spouse of the Prime Minister)
- Strong oppose – all the issues as the other "spouse of" option, and even less concise (five-word disambiguator...); "the Prime Minister" exists in many countries, and its significance for "derived" recognisability is waning the longer the time that elapsed after that Prime Minister's term. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — but spouse of prime minister avoids proper noun capitalization and is better. --В²C ☎ 17:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - which PM vague, and we have options that won't be read as defining her as secondary. --GRuban (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Worse than wife of Gordon, this is not currently correct, was only correct for a few years. Unacceptable, current is better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- We disambiguate former actors with just “(actor)”. Why not wives of the Prime Minister? —В²C ☎ 20:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support for the same reason as "spouse of Gordon Brown". The qualifier will always be historically correct. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reason as below. SarahSV (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - there's no need to use "spouse" when a more precise, concise and natural alternative exists. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as we know which Prime Minister she married, this option is worse than the ones that identify him by name. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Disambiguating people born after 1900 by marital status is a bad idea. At risk of derailing into discussion, the idea that "spouse of" somehow makes it better is ludicrous; the complaint isn't the word "wife", it's describing anyone as solely an appendage to someone else. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister)
- Support – This is really what she is best known for. This is why she's notable. She'd never be a charity director of note unless she had been the spouse of the prime minister. --В²C ☎ 17:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - PM vague, we have options that won't be read as defining her as secondary. --GRuban (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – this is not even grammatically correct and is ambiguous. CookieMonster755✉ 00:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- How is it ambiguous? Because there are other people who are spouses of prime ministers? How is that relevant? If it were, then we couldn't use "actor" or "footballer" as parenthetic disambiguation either, because those are ambiguous with other people who are actors and footballers. But of course we do use those terms, because the context of ambiguity that matters here is within the realm of people with the name in question. To wit, no other Sarah Brown is a spouse of prime minister, so it's not ambiguous. --В²C ☎ 00:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- My apologizes, but I strongly disagree. This is a weird-styled disambiguation, and its not even grammar correct. I'd rather see "wife of..." than this proposed disambiguation. CookieMonster755✉ 18:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- How is it ambiguous? Because there are other people who are spouses of prime ministers? How is that relevant? If it were, then we couldn't use "actor" or "footballer" as parenthetic disambiguation either, because those are ambiguous with other people who are actors and footballers. But of course we do use those terms, because the context of ambiguity that matters here is within the realm of people with the name in question. To wit, no other Sarah Brown is a spouse of prime minister, so it's not ambiguous. --В²C ☎ 00:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Worse than wife of Gordon, this is not currently correct, was only correct for a few years. Unacceptable, current is better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Disambiguators often identify roles that are "not currently correct" and may have only been correct briefly. Witness all the "(footballer)" people who no longer play football (and those who aren't even still alive). —BarrelProof (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, as above, for the same reason as "spouse of Gordon Brown". And the qualifier will still be historically correct. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – see my objections to "spouse of..." elsewhere, and objections to "prime minister" being vague (too many countries with too many prime ministers over time; recognisability waning over time); over-all also lacks the "in her own right" component, and still four words for a disambiguator that can be much shorter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per SmokeyJoe. SarahSV (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - there's no need to use "spouse" when a more precise, concise and natural alternative exists. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as we know which Prime Minister she married, this option is worse than the ones that identify him by name. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - doesn't scan well. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Disambiguating people born after 1900 by marital status is a bad idea. At risk of derailing into discussion, the idea that "spouse of" somehow makes it better is ludicrous; the complaint isn't the word "wife", it's describing anyone as solely an appendage to someone else. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (UK)
- Oppose – fails not only the guidance against capitalization of disambiguating terms for people disambiguators, but also "Try to avoid using abbreviations ...", from the same WP:NCPDAB guidance; also not very precise (not the only Sarah Brown living in the UK); only advantage: concisest of the proposed disambiguators but then, without any disambiguator is even shorter and not very much more imprecise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - As the spouse of the former PM, she is the only Sarah Brown that represents the UK. She self identifies accordingly by using the SarahBrownUK handle on Twitter. And that also makes people likely to look her up this way. very concise. --В²C ☎ 17:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - not the only notable Sarah Brown in the UK; certainly doesn't represent the UK any more, and it's debatable whether she ever did (does Melania Trump represent the US?). --GRuban (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - not the only Sarah Brown from the UK with a page - see Sarah Brown (politician). Timrollpickering 18:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ping: Francis Schonken, GRuban, Timrollpickering... reconsider this one, perhaps? Sarah Brown (politician), though also from the UK, would never be identified nor disambiguated with UK. This Sarah Brown is identified as such because of her national identify as the spouse of the former prime minister - no other Sarah Brown is identified thusly. Her Twitter handle SarahBrownUK makes sense, and disambiguating her with UK also makes sense, for the same reason. --В²C ☎ 19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose stands, sorry. As above: not only notable SB in UK, and doesn't really represent the UK now, if ever. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- My oppose stands too, was seriously considering "strong oppose", but left out the "strong" in the end only because of the conciseness. But more refined my !vote would be "oppose leaning strong oppose". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Still opposed, the problem remains as a "(UK)" disambiguation implies the sole one in the UK. Twitter handles reflect the character limit available, not much more. Timrollpickering 10:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ping: Francis Schonken, GRuban, Timrollpickering... reconsider this one, perhaps? Sarah Brown (politician), though also from the UK, would never be identified nor disambiguated with UK. This Sarah Brown is identified as such because of her national identify as the spouse of the former prime minister - no other Sarah Brown is identified thusly. Her Twitter handle SarahBrownUK makes sense, and disambiguating her with UK also makes sense, for the same reason. --В²C ☎ 19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. She does not represent the UK, not now, never previously. Never elected. This would appear to be the subject’s personal choice, based on her Twitter name, but it is too presumptuous. Sarah Brown (politician) has a better claim. Not acceptable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning Oppose. One of the least appealing qualifiers. National identification is even less appropriate than "(born 1963)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - not precise. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - not precise. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose and trout slap for the waste of time. This one was obviously never going to succeed and it's been noted before. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
- Oppose – slightly better than the too formal "spouse ...", but more or less all the other disadvantages (lacks conciseness, has parenthetical disambiguating terms with capitals, lack of focus on the "in her own right" aspect). This one wins on recognisability, but that's only one of four of the WP:CRITERIA, and IMHO too problematic on other aspects (too far from the conciseness criterion, fails WP:NCPDAB on at least two points that can easily be satisfied by one of the other available options). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong support - Accurate, but the more generic spouse of prime minister is less problematic. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Changed from weak to strong support. Apparently "spouse" is not less problematic and this is exactly how she is mostly commonly referred in reliable source and so how we should disambiguate. It's not our job to be any more politically correct than reliable sources are - if this reference is acceptable for them, then it should be for us too. --В²C ☎ 19:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - we have options that won't be read as defining her as secondary. --GRuban (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose defining her by her husband, and per the salient points raised in this past discussion jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Irrelevant alternative. Is not what she’s best known for, unless you are reading too many tabloids. Most of her accomplishments do not derive from being married to Gordon. Several are associated with him, but do not derive from him. “Wife of”/spouse/partner all imply subservience, which is appropriate for Shakespear’s and Caesar’s wives, not appropriate for Sarah. She is independently notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Correct, specific and equally acceptable alongside "(spouse of…)" forms. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support – neutral and straight to the point. CookieMonster755✉ 18:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. SarahSV (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support as the only good option. She is known for being his wife, just like Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) is known for being Shakespeare's wife. She's done lots of important things in her life, but she's most notable for marrying Gordon Brown. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support as first choice, how reliable sources treat her is the most important factor. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support as first choice, per Iffy. This is what she is primarily known as, and meets WP:COMMONNAME because a large volume of sources refer to her as this. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support What she's known for.Kevin Dewitt Always ping 23:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Disambiguating people born after 1900 by marital status is a bad idea. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Like it or not, this is about the only thing she's particularly known for. We wouldn't have an article on her if she hadn't been the wife of Gordon Brown, so it seems pretty silly to try to desperately to find a disambiguator other than this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Jane Brown
- Oppose – fails WP:MIDDLENAME: "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." The sooner we can get away from this one the better. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose — fails WP:NATURALDIS as well as WP:MIDDLENAME, as she is not commonly known by this name. It's misleading to title the article this way, as it wrongly implies that she does go by this name and/or is she is commonly referred to by this name. Worse choice of all. --В²C ☎ 17:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - not used to name her; unlike parenthetical disambiguators which aren't expected to be used. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose (Recycling my comments from above:) It isn't how she's referred to at all, it implies her first name is actually the double barrelled "Sarah Jane" and clearly isn't a natural disambiguation. Timrollpickering 18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Acceptable. Standard real world biography disambiguating method. It is natural, correct, neutral. No one uses it, which is bad, but it is not wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not known as --- not WP:COMMONNAME and, within content of articles, absence of a qualifier lowers or eliminates the use of piping to hide any of the above qualifiers, leaving only the option of inserting a misleading Sarah Jane Brown|Sarah Brown pipe. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. This is her name. SarahSV (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC); edited 18:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - this is not what she's known as. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as reliable sources don't use her full name. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - fails recognizability. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. What's confusing about her name? There's no need to be recognizable, it's just her name. Yes, the middle name isn't frequently used, but some sort of disambiguator is required, so a more formal, fuller name is fine. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- What's confusing (and downright misleading) about it is that it incorrectly suggests that that is her name; that that is how she is normally referenced. It would be only slightly more problematic to use Sarah John Brown. --В²C ☎ 18:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the media does not generally use her middle name. The claim that this is not actually her name has been gone over in great detail in previous RMs. Please stop stating your totally unsubstantiated opinion that this is literally not her name as fact. You have been repeatedly challenged on this before and have never provided any evidence of this, while evidence has been provided about Jane (and not John or Horatio or whatever). SnowFire (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously it is her name, I don't think that's in dispute. The main question though, is whether a reader would dismiss the article as "not the correct Sarah Brown" based on seeing her middle name, bearing in mind that it is rarely, if ever, used to describe her in any reliable sources. Compare and contrast to Sarah Joy Brown, who apparently uses her middle name frequently, including on her website, making that a good choice of disambiguator. Putting the middle name in carries some implication that people will recognise that. When I first saw this article a couple of years ago, I had a slight moment of astonishment that the article pertained to *this* Sarah Brown, in a way that using the "born 1963" disambiguator would not. — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown. By ALL accounts, without exception, her name since her marriage has been and remains, simply Sarah Brown. People change their names for many reasons; marriage is one of them. Whether they retain, change or omit their middle name as part of that name change is up to them. I'm not aware of any reason to think that SB retained Jane as her middle name after marrying GB. There is zero basis for using Sarah Jane Brown as the title of this article. --В²C ☎ 19:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the media does not generally use her middle name. The claim that this is not actually her name has been gone over in great detail in previous RMs. Please stop stating your totally unsubstantiated opinion that this is literally not her name as fact. You have been repeatedly challenged on this before and have never provided any evidence of this, while evidence has been provided about Jane (and not John or Horatio or whatever). SnowFire (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- What's confusing (and downright misleading) about it is that it incorrectly suggests that that is her name; that that is how she is normally referenced. It would be only slightly more problematic to use Sarah John Brown. --В²C ☎ 18:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (businesswoman)
- Support: I hope it's ok to add this as a suggestion. It seems to me that this was the thing for which she became notable, i. e., being a founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, which is a business. This is Paul (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Have you read RM#5? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, discussion is several years old, and ended without consensus. This is Paul (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Have you read RM#5? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – the term "businesswoman" relates too little to why the person is notable in their own right. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Would not be my first choice for a qualifier, but there nothing objectionable about it and it is correct in the same manner as "(charity director)", "(education campaigner)" or "(health and education advocate)" are also correct. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - this is not what she's known for. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - No evidence that any sources refer to her this way. --В²C ☎ 16:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown, per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (public relations)
- Support: This could be an alternative to my suggestion above, since the business she founded was a public relations business. This is Paul (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Have you read RM#4? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, discussion is several years old, and ended without consensus. Note that Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) has previously been used and rejected. This is Paul (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Have you read RM#4? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – "public relations" is too vague imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Again, unless Sarah Brown is currently engaged in earning her primary income in business or public relations, this would not be my first choice for a qualifier, but these were her occupations at some point in her life. There is, again, nothing objectionable about this qualifier and addition of almost any qualifier is better than leaving the main header as Sarah Jane Brown but, unless she becomes the prime minister, or otherwise gains consensus for a rise to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, her main claim to historical prominence will be as the prime minister's wife / spouse. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - this is not what she's known for. Red Slash 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - No evidence that any sources refer to her this way. --В²C ☎ 16:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support as second choice to one of the variations of her name. This seems to be the business she's in. SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone looking for her will go to Sarah Brown, where they will find her easily. SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Career disambiguators don't really work for Brown, per Amakuru. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (activist)
- Support– Similar to the "campaigner" and "advocate" options, but I think that "activist" is a more general term that's marginally better than those two options. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose for ambiguity with the other Sarah Brown who is called an activist in the first sentence of the lead section. I'd suggest to stop adding ever more far-fetched alternatives that would not make much chance (for obviously not being thought through). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. At least the other choices have some basis in usage. Why use something nobody else calls her? --В²C ☎ 16:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Too generic, not the only Sarah Brown who is an activist, per above. Timrollpickering 10:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (activist and prime minister's spouse)
- Support– Defines her on her roles rather than her husband's first and foremost, but also avoids the risk of confusing readers who know her primarily as Gordon Brown's wife. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – "activist" and "prime minister's spouse" are both worse than suboptimal (see above), the combination makes it even worse for being excessively long... The only double profession I would think at all possible is "charity director and writer" (as in the UK Public Register, & "describes herself as a charity director and writer"), but would leave out the "and writer" for not being the most recognisable part, which gives us, see above, #Sarah Brown (charity director). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. At least the other choices have some basis in usage. Why use something nobody else calls her? --В²C ☎ 16:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per above. Timrollpickering 10:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (entrepreneur)
- Neutral: Let's chuck yet another possible description into the hat as well. As the founder of a business this is a possible alternative, although few sources describe her in this way. This is Paul (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose for same reason as last two. No basis in sources. Why use something nobody else calls her? --В²C ☎ 19:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – entrepreneur is an even less notable part of her public life than being a writer. Please stop proposing these alternatives that really don't make a chance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per above. Timrollpickering 10:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion
I implemented a new structure of the !voting area (which should make it somewhat easier to assess for the future closer of this RM), and would move already cast !votes to appropriate subsections (or this general discussion area), unless if someone objects. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- To me that restructure seemed very unhelpful and I removed it while maintaining your comments and comment hierarchy verbatim. Some comments (like mine) contain remarks about all of the candidate titles. Replies to comments may also cross the boundaries of which candidate name is being discussed. Trying to have a separate section about every candidate name is confusing and would be excessively lengthy. You entered a comment at the top of every one of your category-specific sections, which made your comments a very lengthy and complicated addition that seemed to seek to dominate the discussion by placing your remarks first for every candidate. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't change the way I contributed to the discussion: I'll respect your approach, please respect mine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Imposing a new structure is not just "contributing to the discussion" (and I did not change a single word of what you wrote), but of course if no one else sees a problem with your new structure, I will defer. I just hope there is no implied obligation that participants need to break down their remarks into highly redundant separate comments about each candidate name, and that anyone who would close the discussion will read the remarks that aren't broken down into single-candidate specifics. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- BarrelProof, please look over how it's developing and reconsider. I think it will really help. --В²C ☎ 19:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Imposing a new structure is not just "contributing to the discussion" (and I did not change a single word of what you wrote), but of course if no one else sees a problem with your new structure, I will defer. I just hope there is no implied obligation that participants need to break down their remarks into highly redundant separate comments about each candidate name, and that anyone who would close the discussion will read the remarks that aren't broken down into single-candidate specifics. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't change the way I contributed to the discussion: I'll respect your approach, please respect mine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I like it, Francis Schonken. I think it will make it much easier for the closer. You can make comments referring to other choices under each section as appropriate, BarrelProof. I've already done so, and am about to strike my original !vote. It does take 10-20 minutes, but I think it's worth it to finally resolve this. --В²C ☎ 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- The effort involved will certainly winnow out all those who don't have a strong opinion! --GRuban (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, blanket oppose all choices on general principle. But I guess if you can't actually build a consensus after years of fighting this little war, making a ridiculously large multiple choice poll to try and obfuscate things to the point that one could claim almost any consensus they wanted is a good second option. Creative, but this is already a trainwreck simply due to how large and unwieldy it is. Resolute 02:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Negative much? Some of us recognized years ago that a multi choice approach is the onl6 way we’re going to find a title with consensus support. Right now if you toss out all the ones with a majority opposing we’re down to a handful of choices already. Not that large or unwieldy after all. --В²C ☎ 08:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
What about SNOW closing/hatting the ones with near unanimous opposition? That will simplify the choices. Thoughts? --В²C ☎ 08:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Best to exert some patience I suppose. Let it run for at least a week with all options. Leave it up to an uninvolved evaluator then: they can relist with some options left out if by then consensus on one of the major options isn't clear yet (that would be a somewhat exceptional form of relisting, so they may not want to take the risk to do something that is procedurally less clear, so indeed leave it up to them).
- In general, after so many years, I see no reason to rush (at least a week...) now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Leave partial closes to a qualified closer. Administrative fiddling by someone involved could undermine this shaky whole process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the new structure of the discussion per BarrelProof. We were making some progress with the section above that, and the new format is not helpful. Discussions are made by people saying what they like, not what they don't like. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- I’m seeing opposes as well as supports among all the choices. I think a good (and surprising to me) choice is coming out of this. —В²C ☎ 18:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- To me it looks like nee and b1963 have emerged as the two key contenders, and the comment by Francis Schonken about b1963 puts a bit of a tilt in the balance between the two. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, BarrelProof, and I think we should SNOW close all but those two so anyone else arriving here only has to take the time and energy to select between those two. All the other choices have overwhelming opposition. I think encouraging remaining participants to focus on these two will give us a more solid final choice, not to mention a much easier job for the closer. --В²C ☎ 18:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose any premature closing of subthreads, and any closing by involved parties. Further, "All the other choices have overwhelming opposition" is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- The definition of "overwhelming" is, literally, "very great in amount." All choices other than b1963 and nee have a very great number of opposes relative to these two. How is characterizing that as "overwhelming" incorrect? --В²C ☎ 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- The wifeGB option doesn't have overwhelming opposition as it happens, and the oppose votes on that one are weak IMHO. Policy should trump WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but who knows. YMMV. I suspect we will end up with b1963, which is unfortunate but not the end of the world. — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- The definition of "overwhelming" is, literally, "very great in amount." All choices other than b1963 and nee have a very great number of opposes relative to these two. How is characterizing that as "overwhelming" incorrect? --В²C ☎ 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose any premature closing of subthreads, and any closing by involved parties. Further, "All the other choices have overwhelming opposition" is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, BarrelProof, and I think we should SNOW close all but those two so anyone else arriving here only has to take the time and energy to select between those two. All the other choices have overwhelming opposition. I think encouraging remaining participants to focus on these two will give us a more solid final choice, not to mention a much easier job for the closer. --В²C ☎ 18:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- To me it looks like nee and b1963 have emerged as the two key contenders, and the comment by Francis Schonken about b1963 puts a bit of a tilt in the balance between the two. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I’m seeing opposes as well as supports among all the choices. I think a good (and surprising to me) choice is coming out of this. —В²C ☎ 18:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Born2cycle & all: Has Sarah Jane (philanthropist) been seriously considered? It seems like a good option. AdA&D ★ 01:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t think so. Any sources refer to her this way? —В²C ☎ 06:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: please don't snow close anything. This needs to be closed by uninvolved admins, and they can decide whether to close some sections early. Have you asked around yet for a group of closers? SarahSV (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure why everyone is so strongly against closing the options that don't have SNOW chance, but I'm certainly not going to do it lacking general support from others. At this point I don't see a need for a panel of closers. It looks like the vast majority of choices can be instantly ruled out, and it will be close to a coin toss between a couple of choices found acceptable by the vast majority of participants. --В²C ☎ 18:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Because most responders are enthusiasts who are dedicated to having this page moved. Wait to see if more uninvolved people turn up. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure why everyone is so strongly against closing the options that don't have SNOW chance, but I'm certainly not going to do it lacking general support from others. At this point I don't see a need for a panel of closers. It looks like the vast majority of choices can be instantly ruled out, and it will be close to a coin toss between a couple of choices found acceptable by the vast majority of participants. --В²C ☎ 18:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: please don't snow close anything. This needs to be closed by uninvolved admins, and they can decide whether to close some sections early. Have you asked around yet for a group of closers? SarahSV (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have !voted above for Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay). It should be understood that minor variations of this approach (using her original name) are also acceptable, and I oppose everything else.
In general, it would have been better if this RfC had been structured as a list of options, where everyone could indicate their preference order, together with a general comment explaining their !vote. This format of "Oppose" and "Support" for every option is needlessly unwieldy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I and several others said this above. We started out with the approach you mention, a set of options coded by "wife", "spouseGB", "b1963" and so on, which was going well, until someone decided to impose their own format on the debate. I suppose this will lead to the least worst option, rather than the best, but what else can we do. — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not rocket science, but it is tedious. Picking the contenders
More pre-RM discussions in preparation for opening the formal RM above. Hatting to avoid confusion with the subsequent RM discussion itself (although review of this discussion would probably be helpful and is recommended for those preparing to comment in the RM and for anyone preparing to close it). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
With so many options, it is not appropriate for a nominator to comment on every option, taking the highly privileged position of first say on every option and forcing everyone else to respond. Instead, I'm providing a list, sorted by similarity not recommendation. At the top is the current. All others should be compared against the current. I think this is a valuable educational exercise for the first round of discussion. If no one think one of the options is better than the current, then it should be dropped. I think, for example, that all of suite 5 are not serious contenders. All these options are taken from the archives, but it is tedious work, the archives being so repetitive. If I have missed any, please add them. I suggest that the easiest approach, at least for the early participants, is to copy the list and comment on each independently. Do not just lightly pick your favourite and say "strong support" unless you are familiar with Plurality_voting#Disadvantages. Do feel encouraged to disapprove of whole sets. A reason, or argument, should always be provided. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", it is written somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Draft list of all serious optionscurrent
non-parentheticals
by birth year Macaulay
Gordon Brown
PM
by notable characteristic
End of list of options. example !voteMy !vote, tentatively... I will ignore all options I don't think are viable. This includes all of (5). Inlcudes all of (6) as all mediocre, all too small a subset of what charactersies the subject, thus all failing to be a recognisable characteristic. I'll ignore 4b-g as irrelavent alternatives to 4a, but would revisit if others speak to them. Thus: current
non-parentheticals
by birth year
Macaulay
Gordon Brown
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC) If others' input caused me to change some opinions, I would edit the above. I recommend that every keeps their comments in their own !vote section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
|
Thinking outside the box
We have been arguing about the title of this article for over 10 years... and it seems we are no closer to reaching a consensus than we were 10 years ago. So, I think it may be time to think “outside the box”... has anyone thought to contact the subject, explain our dilemma and ask HER opinion? I know we don’t usually give much weight to what the subject wants (or rather we give more weight to other factors)... but in this case, I think it a viable “tie breaker”. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above multi-choice approach is thinking out of the box, and does seem to have a good chance of finding consensus for a new title that is neither "Sarah Jane Brown" nor "Sarah Brown (wife/spouse of ...)". Let's give it a chance, shall we? --В²C ☎ 01:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I wrote to Sarah, care of Gordon Brown, in June 2013. I received no response. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nice to know I am not the only one to think of this. Might be worth another try ... just saying. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)