This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Maybe we need a multiple choice RM, where participants choose among the current title and several others, making first and second choices? That way at least we can see if the current title is preferred over all other options? Let's use this section to discuss whether such an approach might be fruitful, and, if so, what the other options should be. If we have consensus to go forward, then I'll file a formal RM accordingly.
Feel free to add what you think would be a good choice for a title in the box below, and your comments in the Discussion subsection below that. --В²C☎ 16:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I just added some points to consider about each choice. If you think any are biased please improve accordingly, but the goal is to reduce decision-making by people who may not be aware of the drawbacks of some of these choices. --В²C☎ 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
A) Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)
B) Sarah Brown (born 1963)
C) Sarah Brown (British celebrity)
D) Sarah Brown
E) Sarah Jane Brown
F) Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
G) Sarah Brown (health and education advocate)
H) Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)
I) Sarah Brown (campaigner)
J) Sarah Brown (spouse of prime minister)
Better idea: Ignore the article title for 2 years, come back later and see if the name / reason for notability have changed. We long ago hit the point of diminishing returns here... it just doesn't matter enough for the amount of time wasted that could be used elsewhere. SnowFire (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"*(wife of Gordon Brown)" is not an option. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I beg your pardon for disagreeing, but if it has consensus then it is an option and the one that should be taken. You don't get to dictate that. Further, the WP:NCPDAB guideline statues that, "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right." Here you come up against someone who, in the weight of the secondary sources, is primarily notable for being the wife of the prime minister. It's not misogynist to note that fact or that guideline.
I'm not arguing for (wife of Gordon Brown). By and large I think SnowFire has the right idea here. GoldenRing (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Tarc. But more specifically, maybe you need to just drop the stick? Resolute 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Generally, when multiple unrelated people are seeing a problem and proposing changes, as has always been the case with this title, asking people to "drop the stick" doesn't work. And just because you think the current title "should" be "fine", does not make it so.
There is probably a title out there that can be supported by consensus. I don't know what it is, but it's pretty clear Sarah Jane Brown and Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) are not it (though I don't think we should prejudge and exclude either from the choices). What's the harm in finding out which of multiple titles is most favored or least objectionable? --В²C☎ 19:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Because this article is the classic edge case. Look, *none* of the titles are good. If there was a 'right' answer it would have been found by now. In a giant work like Wikipedia, you'd expect this to be true for at least a few articles; congratulations, you found it, a rare article where every possible title has a problem. There is nothing more to be gained here. Accept that the title is bad, and at least some editors believe alternate titles are even worse, and move on to some place where there's the possibility of actual notable improvement. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. I've seen too many situations like this where people argued essentially the same thing, but where it was actually those anti-more-discussion arguments that delayed the reaching of consensus. Yogurt, Cork (city), Las Vegas, Ivory Coast, Big Ben, Hollywood, etc., etc... in all of these cases the previous titles were controversial, advocates against change argued more discussion was a waste of time, and, in spite of those efforts, when discussion was able to proceed, stable and uncontroversial titles enjoying consensus support were eventually agreed upon.
More to the point, I don't believe there isn't an alternative to this current title that has less objection than this one has. The problem is that the best choice - whatever it is - is probably not anyone's first choice, but at least it's not unacceptable like this one is too many. --В²C☎ 21:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If another option ends up in less objection, it will only be because people have finally gotten sick of WP:IDHT and WP:TE-style arguments and have thrown their hands up in exasperation. Resolute 19:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
(out-dent) Your other examples have no relevance whatsoever to my point. B2C, this entire process is based on a false assumption. Let's pretend there's some magic objective score for potential titles for an article from 1-10, created by some neutral party. 10 is simple & correct, maybe 8 is right but with a slightly wordy parenthetical clarification, a 5 or 6 is technically accurate but breaks some usual Wikipedia standards, a 3 is a naively valid title but out-of-date or misleading, a 1 is outright inaccurate. The point of RMs is to improve Wikipedia by getting higher scoring article titles. For most articles with a '5' title it's worth placing a RM to get it to a better title. For this article, guess what, all the choices are bad. You are assuming that because there are valid complaints about "Sarah Jane Brown" and "(wife of Gordon Brown)" there must be a better title out there. We've looked. There isn't. This is just shuffling between a bunch of options that are rated 5 or worse on our magic scale and won't actually improve Wikipedia, regardless of whether consensus shifts or not.
Also, multiple choice is a poor idea here IMO. It's entirely possible that there's some option that has plurality support that is deeply loathed by the other 60%. Borda count is also an awful voting method per others. If you want to hold some informal, editor and patience exhausting poll to find a title you think has support, then file a yes-or-no RM, that's what I'd recommend if you truly insist on continuing this (which, per above, I'd recommend against... but it seems that ship has already sailed. Sigh.) SnowFire (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I missed this post, SnowFire. I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I suggest the current title is a 3 or a 4, and there are several on the list that are at least in the 6-7 range. --В²C☎ 17:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I added Sarah Brown (health and education advocate) to the list based on how she describes herself[1]. It's a bit long, but could be worse (Sarah Brown (women and children's health and education advocate)). Probably my favorite at this point. --В²C☎ 06:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Added Sarah Brown (born 1963) and Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) Both are standard biographical details and although she hasn't used her maiden name in years it's less obscure than her middle name. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The alternatives are of two types: (a) those that have been discussed and dismissed in the recent past; and (b) those that are bizarre. Enthusiasm for finding the perfect title is great, but it is not fair on other editors who have to occasionally check this page to see what is going on. SnowFire offered excellent advice above, and that's what should happen. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Johnuniq, good points. How about this? We continue building the list until interest dies down. Then we open an RM where everyone selects their top 3. First choice is 3 points, second choice is 2 points and third choice is 1 point. The choice that gets the most points wins. And we notify all past participants about the multi-choice RM? Do you think that would be fair? --В²C☎ 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
How about a nice and simple Sarah Brown (campaigner)? Although she is better known as Gordon Brown's wife, she is still very well known for her campaigning, as the lead of the article and her website show. It distinguishes her without being obscure and avoids the use of a name sources do not use and readers do not know. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I would hope that you have enough faith in your fellow editors to know that those choices will not prevail. --В²C☎ 20:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
So, you put the choices in, then berate another editor for realizing that they're not acceptable? Omnedon (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
What's acceptable is up to consensus, not any one of us. I didn't berate anyone. --В²C☎ 20:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have reinserted the title with "née". According to the archives, it is quite popular: see archive 2, for example, where it gained a lot of support and little criticism, if any at all. There has not been proper analysis or criticism about this possibility, other than Tarc asserting that it is "archaic" and Guy including it on his subjective list. "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)" just means "Sarah Brown, formerly Sarah Macaulay". Any BLP concerns can be addressed in later discussion that involves others: we should not be removing viable and seemingly popular titles after little discussion, not matter how strongly individual editors feel. On the other hand, a wide discussion has already established that "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" will not go far, meaning there is no benefit of including it here. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have inserted a suggestion below for how a a multiple choice RM can be run: see what you think. More choices can be added easily. We should determine a choice of names that covers all possibilities and then open the RM. In a complex situation like this, a multiple choice RM is much more helpful. To those dubious, consider the following: if Sarah Jane Brown turns out to be the most supported, we can claim it has consensus and avoid further RMs until the situation changes, if it changes at all. If we do not do this, then there will be a run of single-choice RMs attempting many different possibilities. We can get this problem all over with, once and for all. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I just added Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister). Because it does not say "wife" nor name her husband, it somehow seems more acceptable than wife of Gordon Brown, and still reflects the characteristic that makes her most notable. Tarc? What do you think? Better? Good enough? We do use similar terminology on every article about every prime minister spouse. See, for example, the caption under the photo of Denis Thatcher... it says Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. --В²C☎ 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This seems reasonable and has not been discussed in detail before. I shall add it to the table below. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion - If you guys can't agree on how to format and create the proposal, perhaps do so on a userspace page.--Yaksar(let's chat) 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with many of the others both above and in the "Discuss the draft" subsection below that it would be best to have a moratorium on this. However, in the event that does not happen, and in light of Tarc's striking of "wife of Gordon Brown" and the lack of objection by anyone else to that as having been decisively rejected by the community, I am going to take the liberty of striking just "Sarah Brown". There have been two attempts to move there in the past six months, including one that closed two days before this discussion about starting a new, tenth move request was started. There was also a subsection suggesting that title in the June 2013 move discussion that saw the move from "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" to "Sarah Jane Brown", and it wasn't adopted then, either. That seems like pretty decisive rejection to me.
If we did need to move (and we don't), what's wrong with Sarah Brown (born 1963), anyway? It's bland, but at least no one can say it's improper. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, Egsan Bacon, I think it's likely that Sarah Brown (born 1963) might turn out to be the most acceptable choice after this process completes.
As to the striking out, I think it's important to leave all options in, so nobody can claim later that the resulting decision was not definitive regarding Title X because Title X was not even allowed to be considered compared to all the others. However, I think the RM proposal should mention that local consensus has rejected these titles in past discussions, so everyone is aware. --В²C☎ 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Past participants
Let's use this section to list all (non-IP) participants (including closers) in previous RMs so that they will be easy to access for notifications when we're ready to open an RM. --В²C☎ 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Drafting the proposal statement for this (hopefully final) RM
OPEN SECTION - Feel free to revise/improve as you wish. --В²C☎ 00:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The seven-year-long history of this controversial title is summarized at the top of Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. No title has achieved consensus support, yet.
The current title, Sarah Jane Brownseemsnatural. Jane was her middle name before she married Gordon Brown, when her name was "Sarah Jane Macaulay" (background: here). However, she is not referred to, in any reliable source, by herself or by anyone else, as "Sarah Jane Brown". This is a policy conflict because WP:NATURAL says to "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" (which is reasonable). This name clearly does not meet that criteria. More here.
From the choices below, please:
Categorize per the example below.
Put every choice in one category (to not miss any, copy/paste the example below and rearrange choices per your considerations).
Be judicious about what you put in the Unacceptable category; it should be unacceptable for good reason. The closing admin will determine if we have finally achieved consensus about this title, and a high Acceptable percentage for at least one title is likely to be needed to accomplish this.
Within each category order by preference, most acceptable first.
CLOSING ADMIN: Please identify one clear most acceptable/least unacceptable choice if possible, and move to (or retain) that title. If it's too close to call between two, please consider moving to (or retaining) the title that appears the most acceptable choice and suggesting a new "run-off RM" between the top two choices. --~~~~
SmokeyJoe, are you a such a strong contrarian in real life too? Anyway, we're not voting. We're trying to find consensus. Borda count is a particularly good method for that. It was designed to do that. See: Borda_count#As_a_consensual_method. --В²C☎ 01:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
(sarcasm on) Oh yeah, that's a real concern. There's so much at stake here, after all. (sarcasm off)
Seriously, what's wrong if people order their choices insincerely in order to compromise? That's key to consensus finding! For example, Sarah Jane (wife of Gordon Brozwn) might be my first choice, but knowing how many object to it and will certainly not list it at all, I'm apt to leave it off my list entirely. Isn't that a good thing? And this isn't pure Borda anyway, which involves everyone ordering all N choices. We're only asking everyone to pick their top 4 out of N. Finally, all this is just a suggestion anyway. Ultimately the closely admin will make the final judgement, however he or she deems most appropriate, as always. --В²C☎ 01:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ordering choices is OK, even good. Scoring choices might be better. Commenting on individual choices even better. Autoscoring by Borda, bad. Suppose you like Sarah Jane (wife of Gordon Brown). Why not Sarah Jane (spouse of Gordon Brown), Sarah Jane (partner of Gordon Brown), or Sarah Jane (wife of former PM Gordon Brown)? You should list them all. Then you get to top rank them all, amplifying their votes above all others. Borda is a terrible voting method for voting among similar candidates. Stop using "We", it is almost all just you, singularly. Limiting options? Who decides? You? An algorithm chosen not for its merits but for its ability to output a result?
No. Take all this to a subpage. List every viable option in its own section. Group similar options. Let people comment on every option, and read (not score) what people say. Meta:Voting is evil, read it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Or better yet; stick a cork in all of this and go find something better to do. She's Sarah Jane Brown, irregardless how many sources have ever used her middle name, even if "how many" equals zero. Any reader coming here to read up on this particular person will likely type Sarah Brown into the search box, wind up at that disambig, and then find their way here. It works, it's fine, nothing else flippin matters. Move on. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The misnomer we have in our title is being copied on the Internet[2]. It's irresponsible. If you don't care, then you are free to move on. This is actually one of those rare cases where the title is harmful. Titles are never about helping readers find the article. We can make the title be Pudding Cheeks, and as long as the dab page links to it, readers will be able to find it just as easily. They'll just be mislead into thinking her name is Pudding Cheeks instead of being mislead into thinking her name is Sarah Jane Brown. But why not choose a title that is not misleading about her name? --В²C☎ 05:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no misnomer. Jane is one of her names. She can be named by a variety of combinations of her names. Sarah Jane Brown is probably her offical name in her passport. While another title for this biography might be slightly better (I preferred others), it is not correct to call the current title a misnomer, irresponsible, harmful or misleading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably? Seriously? There is no evidence she is referred to as "Sarah Jane Brown" anywhere, including her passport. But even it was on her passport, that's not a reliable secondary source - and we base our naming, including for natural disambiguation, on usage in reliable secondary sources. --В²C☎ 06:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Your objection to the status quo is overstated. Toned down, I might agree, much as per my statements in the archives. NB. She was referred as "Sarah Jane Macauley" in at least one reliable source. Usage in reliable sources is not absolute, titles can be descriptive, for example. Combining multiple names, each reliably sourced, is not a WP:SYNTH violation, and the name universally used for her post-marriage is not available, per the previous RM, last week, so something not supported by reliable sources must be used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
"This is actually one of those rare cases where the title is harmful." [citation needed]. Resolute 14:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Here ya go[3]. That's a copy/paste of an earlier version of the current article here. See also below; my comment to Omnedon. --В²C☎ 16:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That is merely a single example of another site using the same disambiguator as we do. Unless you are going to tell me how using someone's middle name is inherently harmful, citation still needed. Resolute 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
B2C, you continue to use the word "misleading", but it's not misleading. It's her full name. The frequency with which reliable sources use her full name does not change that. No one is being mislead. Nothing is being harmed. Omnedon (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It's misleading because it incorrectly conveys that she is commonly referred to by that name. My wife had a middle name that she used before we married, but she has not used it anywhere since and it would definitely be misleading to refer to her with it.
Say John and Jane Doe are married. Before they were married she was Jane Livingston Omnedon. After the marriage she went by Jane Doe; never Jane Livingston Doe. Then something made her notable. It would be misleading to title the WP article about her as Jane Livingston Doe, because others would think that's her name, and maybe even start referring to her that way[4] (that's how it becomes harmful). --В²C☎ 16:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added a bit more explanation about why the middle name is problematic and misleading into the draft RM message above. Does that help? --В²C☎ 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that few, if any, but you actually care. If does not matter what she is "commonly known as", not even remotely. The previous "wife of" titles were deemed problematic by the community, and had to go, no exception. It is a verifiable fact that this "Sarah Brown" has a middle name of "Joy" "Jane". No other (at this time) notable Sarah Brown also has that middle name. Therefore, we can use it to disambiguate from other Sarah Browns. To hell with wiki-arcana of style manuals and guidelines that may harp that this isn't a proper method. This is an unusual set of circumstances, and like a wise man recently said, "sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones, but you still have to choose". The choice has been made. Live with it. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all, this Sarah Brown, before she was married, had a middle name of Jane, not Joy. It is NOT verifiable that she continued to have that middle name, or any other middle name for that matter, after she was married. The dearth of sources referencing her with that middle name after marriage strongly suggests it was dropped altogether - but certainly there is no source that verifies "Jane" is her middle name. I think that few care because few are aware of the situation. It's not like the non-use of a former middle name is something that is normally mentioned - it's implicit in the non-use.
Before she was married her middle name was Jane and her full name was Sarah Jane Macaulay; once she was married she dropped her middle name, adopted her husband's surname, and her full name became Sarah Brown. Her name is not, and has never been, Sarah Jane Brown, and it's misleading to suggest it is her name by using that for the title of the article about her. --В²C☎ 19:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Jane, not Joy, I don't know where that came from. Not in an well frame of mind today. Again, what sources do or do not use it just doesn't matter. No one "drops" their middle name. They may cease writing or using it after a fashion, but that's irrelevant; it exists. We can use it to extract ourselves from a sticky situation. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
B2C, what data have you that supports this odd notion that she dropped her middle name when she got married? I see no evidence of this. When people get married, they may use a new surname, or the old one, or a combination of both, or the couple may even settle on a new surname for both of them to use. But dropping middle names? Data, please. Omnedon (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Further, it is not uncommon for a person to "go by" a name other than his/her given name. For example, some prefer their middle names, disliking their first names. But that preference does not change the person's name. Omnedon (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there can be a common law name change via the usage method, but although her name is likely to have legally joined to Sarah Brown by deed in the UK when she got married, that's not really the issue here. The bottom line is that we choose titles (not including parenthetic disambiguation, but including natural disambiguation), based on usage in reliable sources. The main reason we do that is so that our topics are recognizable from their titles and so the titles accurately reflect how that topic is commonly referred. This title utterly fails in this regard. Nobody refers to her as "Sarah Jane Brown", and yet that's our title. We have just as much justification to use "Sarah Jane Brown" as we have for "Sarah Joy Brown", or "Sarah Jack Brown" for that matter: absolutely none. --В²C☎ 00:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely absurd. Her name is not Sarah Joy or Sarah Jack. It is Sarah Jane, and you cannot definitely state that no one calls her that. In any case, it is her name, unlike your other examples. Omnedon (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There is just as much evidence that her name is "Sarah Jane" as there is that Ali's name is "Muhammad Marcellus": none. --В²C☎ 00:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course there is evidence that this is her full name. Denying it doesn't change that. What evidence do you have that she dropped her middle name when she married? Omnedon (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The evidence I have that she dropped her middle name when she married is that neither she nor anybody else ever uses it. What evidence is there that "Sarah Jane Brown" is her full name? --В²C☎ 00:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
B2C: Sorry, but no: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We can certain say that most (though not all) sources omit Brown's middle name, but it's frankly rather bizarre to suggest that that proves she no longer has it. ╠╣uw[talk] 10:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay,╠╣uw, but that goes both ways. Again, what evidence is there that "Sarah Jane Brown" is her full name?
And that thefamouspeople.com website is just a copy/paste of our article created by somebody in India. It's certainly not a reliable source. In fact, it's evidence of the harm this title is causing - perpetuating the misnomer of Sarah Jane Brown as her full name. After all, you fell for it. --В²C☎ 21:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Fell for what? Sarah Jane Macaulay was her maiden name, and she took her husband's surname. These facts are not in dispute. Your personal assumptions, however, are. Is there even one source that says she legally dropped her middle name upon marriage? I certainly can't find one, but do please correct me if I'm somehow missing it... ╠╣uw[talk] 16:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You have to admit, there's something very weird about a page for a notable figure existing at a title which, when searched on google, brings up 0 results for her.--Yaksar(let's chat) 01:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The same would be true of many titles on Wikipedia. That changes nothing. B2C, you have no positive evidence, only speculation. Omnedon (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If you can name one person on Wikipedia who has plenty of google results and google news results but none that come up when using the chosen title, I'll eat my hat and give you a barnstar.--Yaksar(let's chat) 01:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
And no, including the parenthetical disambiguation would obviously not count, in case someone wants to be a smart aleck.--Yaksar(let's chat) 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You referred to article titles. Article titles that have disambiguators are still article titles. So you already know that there are article titles for which a Google search would turn up very few relevant results. Thanks for acknowledging that. This article has a disambiguator in the title, since "Sarah Brown" refers to multiple notable people and thus that name is a disambiguation page. That the disambiguator is not in parentheses is irrelevant. There would be other ways of disambiguating in this case, as in others; but the most recent RM was just closed earlier this month, so it's not being moved now. Omnedon (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Omnedon, but it's very relevant that the disambiguator is not in parentheses. Because it's not in parentheses, and not separated by a comma, it is subject to WP:NATURAL, which states: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English. Since this subject is not commonly called "Sarah Jane Brown", it does not meet the criteria. Not even close. Note we're not arguing it is merely insufficiently used to meet the "also commonly called" criteria; it's that it's NEVER used (by reliable sources, which is what matters) to call her that. Of course it matters that the disambiguator is not in parentheses! It makes a huge difference!
And this isn't wiki lawyering (in case anyone is wondering). The underlying idea that matters here is that titles disambiguated without parentheses are supposed to be recognizable as commonly used references to the topic. This is important because people can and do rely on WP titles to accurately reflect how topics are typically named. Sarah Joy Brown, for example, is not a misleading misnomer like this title is. Her own website refers to her with (as well as without) the "Joy" middle name[5]. So do reliable sources, like TV Guide [6]. But there is nothing like that supporting "Sarah Jane Brown" for this topic. --В²C☎ 20:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "The same would be true of many titles on Wikipedia". Not including parenthetic disambiguation and obviously contrived descriptive titles like Regions of Romania? A WP:NATURAL disambiguation with zero results for a topic that otherwise has considerable results? I don't think so. I don't recall ever seeing even one. Can you back up your claim of "many" with a few examples? I bet not.
The lack of results of anyone, including herself and biographers, using the middle name is not speculation. It's factual evidence supporting the claim that she dropped her middle name when she got married. Usage determines names, especially names of people, by definition. --В²C☎ 02:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"Factual evidence"? That's a meaningless term. What is evidence other than factual? You have no evidence here. Lots of people almost never use their middle names, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean the names do not exist or have been "dropped". You have presented no evidence whatsoever that the name "Jane" has been dropped, but have merely speculated based on lack of evidence. Omnedon (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
In fact the Google search mentioned earlier does turn up this page specifically about the person who is the subject of this article. Zero hits, eh? Omnedon (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made it clearer, but I was hoping we'd at least assume that we're talking about the types of results that at least meet the bare minimum of our verifiability standards, not editable websites that seem to base their info on our Wikipedia page. But hell, even when you make every effort to filter out unrelated results in your search it looks like everything coming up using the name is just some kind of copy or link to this entry.--Yaksar(let's chat) 06:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, but thefamouspeople.com is verifiable! The apparent sole editor/publisher/webmaster even has a Facebook page![7]. ;-) Seriously, if I had an hour or so I bet I could dig through the history of this article and find the exact version that was copy/pasted there. But maybe they do some tweaking so an exact duplicate may not exist. --В²C☎ 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Omnedon, you're being a little silly aren't you? What kind of evidence would you expect to exist to support the dropping of a middle name of any person? People who drop middle names just stop using them. There is no press release. You're asking me to provide evidence that is practically impossible to exist. Besides, the main point is not that it's no longer her middle name, but that nobody uses it, that nobody refers to her as Sarah Jane Brown - so it's misleading for us to use that as natural disambiguation, and harmful because dumb sites like thefamouspeople.com copy us, thus spreading the misinformation. But I can understand why you would want to divert from those main points and focus on the irrelevant, esoteric and pointless semantic question of whether "Jane" remains her middle name (whatever that means) given that she and everybody else stopped using it to refer to her after getting married. --В²C☎ 16:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you admit there is unlikely to be any evidence for your stupid claim, quit making your stupid claim. The most recent RM closed just recently, but as usual, you refuse to accept the result. And you, of all people, accuse SmokeyJoe of being a contrarian? LOL! Omnedon (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
So you continue to focus on the irrelevant? Really? The result of the last and all previous RM discussions was "no consensus". I accept that, and I'm trying to address it, and hopefully resolve it. Finally. What is your purpose here? You're certainly not leading or following. What does that leave? hint: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." --В²C☎ 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, another of your tactics -- when you don't like what people are saying, you invite them to leave. You're not going to resolve anything by making spurious claims with no evidence. Omnedon (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've explained repeatedly the "spurious claim" that you're supposedly so concerned about is not key to this. It is no longer in the draft RM message. Again, it's irrelevant. But you refuse to let it go. Again, what is one to discern about your purpose here, except to be disruptive? --В²C☎ 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
At this moment, to call you on your nonsense. Generally, to improve the encyclopedia. Your continued bickering about this subject is what's disruptive. Let it go. Walk away. Give it some time. Omnedon (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm baffled by your favoring "walk away", and especially why you're so adamant about it (why don't you walk away?).
The current state about this title is "no consensus". We know how to reach consensus through discussion. Last I checked, we didn't have policy about "reaching discussion by walking away". Efforts like this have worked in the past. Why are you so opposed to it here? Because it's my idea? Are you really that petty? --В²C☎ 19:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the state of this title is not "no consensus". The result of the move was "no consensus". How many times must this be spelled out for you? There was no consensus to move, so we did not move. Now, give it some time before rehashing the whole thing yet again with another RM. That is what I mean by "walk away". You're not helping anything here. Omnedon (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth noting that British names are considered slightly differently to those of many other countries. There is no real concept of "legally changing a name": British subjects do not require any kind of legal document or permission in order to change their name, for example. Simply adopting a new name and renouncing a former name is sufficient (some further details here). This is a very interesting article. See this extract concerning their marriage:
Arrangements remained a tightly guarded secret. But under Scottish law, the couple had to publish wedding details in the nearest register office to where the ceremony would take place.
Details appeared on a single sheet of paper pinned to the front window of the register office.
Under Section 4(2) of the Marriage Scotland Act 1977, the couple were obliged to allow the publication of their full names - James Gordon Brown and Sarah Jane Macaulay - along with the date of the wedding, August 3.
Note that the few sources using "Jane" given before were published at the time of her marriage. It really does seem as if Brown's middle name, Jane, is something that is not used publicly. It emphasises even further the unsuitability of the current title when more natural and helpful disambiguators exist. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Born2cycle is repeatedly overloading this proposed notification with verbose detail not appropriate to a notification. Arguments, and opinions as to applicability of policy to a particular question, belong in a nomination statement or a !vote, not in a spammed notification to many past participants. If this message is to be advertised, not that it will represent the actions of the notifier, and does not reflect a consensus of participants here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, the draft proposal notification that will go to all past participants, is on the sub page. See Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Past_RM_participant_list#Message_Draft. This is the the draft RM proposal statement. I thought that was obvious from the wording (e.g., "The top of this talk page summarizes..."). I've changed the section heading to be more clear. --В²C☎ 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was not obvious enough for all of us. That's a better section heading. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Status: list of title options appears close if not final; RM message still in progress
Looks like updates to the list of options have petered out, but editing of the draft RM message remains active. As soon as that settles down I'll file the RM. --В²C☎ 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Leave struck out options out?
I know there is strong opposition to certain previously considered and rejected titles, most notably Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) and Sarah Brown. Those who strongly oppose them want them to not be offered on the list of titles to be considered, on the reasonable grounds that they have been previously rejected. But I wonder if that's a really good idea.
What we're trying to accomplish with this effort is to find a solution that is broadly supported. I'm concerned that leaving these off the list will allow the final decision here to be questioned as not being a comprehensive process. After all, consensus can change, and in this kind of process it's theoretically possible for a previously rejected option to be found to be most acceptable. In this particular case I think it's practically impossible for that to happen (I, for one, will list "wife of Gordon Brown" as unacceptable because of others' BLP concerns even though I don't agree with them), but I don't want to leave room for others to reasonably question whatever result we end up here. I'm concerned that if we leave these off, that's exactly what others may argue in the future, and we won't have settled this after all. On the other hand, if they're on the list, we'll have evidence that they were soundly rejected by consensus in this consideration of all titles. --В²C☎ 18:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Put all the suggested names on the list. Anyone who has a concern will put the title in the unacceptable section of their vote and explain why. It makes sense to consider consensus between all titles and sort the matter out fully than to leave any possibility for future conflict. Adding two additional names will not be problematic when a survey is taking place anyway. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Instead of an RM, why not list it as an RFC and place a note at the RM page? Doing so will keep it open for a month to gain more exposure and the question can be worded more neutrally ("What is the best name for the article out of these?" instead of "Do you support a move from this title to any of the following titles?") This approach was used in RM 6 and worked well. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, to avoid bias due to the order of titles used in the poll, I suggest using a random number generator to determine the order of titles. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Update: I have just done this on the list of current names. The random sequence given was 8, 7, 3, 2, 1, 4, 6, 5, 9, 10. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll go with that random order.
Isn't an RM just a specialized RfC? Since all previous participants will be notified, we shouldn't need more than a week. But it wouldn't hurt to make it an official RfC as well. --В²C☎ 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not know. In hindsight, putting it as an RFC is problematic because of the introduction: it has to be short and neutral for an RFC, but the one above is not (it is discussing the problems with the current title). I have updated the draft message to explain the problem is not just a title that could be incorrect, but one that is not used in reliable sources and is unfamiliar and confusing. I have unearthed the origin of "Jane", too, which is interesting. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If you are happy with my changes, then we have all had a chance to make changes to it, so I suggest filing the RM. :) 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The "wife of" is not an option, it does not matter how many people actually "vote" for it, this article will never return to that; a local consensus does not override site-wide WP:BLP policy, a point I'm pretty sure that JzG, aka Guy, made the last time around. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I cannot imagine consensus changing so strongly as to favour that. It is better to have it there and for it to be strongly outvoted than to have it conspicuously missing. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A policy-violating option can only be "conspicuously missing" if one is acting in bad faith. Is there any reason I should not take your insistence on including it as being mysogynistic trolling? Resolute 20:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That the "Wife of" title would violate policy is at best an opinion held by many, but it is not a fact. It would therefore be subject to questioning in the future. Leaving it in the list of "options" will definitely put the nail in that issue; leaving it out will allow it to fester. Is that what you want? --В²C☎ 20:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Even though many disagree with it, there are still many that prefer it, as previous discussions show. Not enough to make it a viable title, however. If it is omitted from the list of possible titles, then these users will suggest it anyway. It should be included on the list and outvoted: that will support your view far more than removing it altogether. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Given the nail has already been put in that issue, my opinion, B2C, is that this issue seems likely to fester until a pair of topic bans are handed out. Resolute 20:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Those who object to it the "wife of" title most strongly are the only ones discussing it. The outcome of this process, if all titles are left in, is likely to be a good title to which nobody strongly objects, and will be strongly supported here on out. The rare occasional efforts to suggest changing this title to anything else, including the "wife of" title, will be shot down immediately. That's how it goes in every other case that has done this, AFAIK. But if it's not on the list in this process, the ability to curtail such efforts will be more difficult and time consuming. Why leave us open to that? We want a strong definitive decision here; that's the goal. We currently don't have that, not even with "wife of". --В²C☎ 20:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
After all, consensus can change. After five days? Because that's how long ago the last move request closed. Consensus didn't support "Sarah Brown" earlier this week when it was only one of two options. How could it gain consensus now as one of ten? Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That was in reference to the "wife of" option primarily. But we want as final a decision here as possible. If we omit options, for any reason, the finality of the decision weakens. Two years from now all that will matter is whether that option was available when everyone in the relatively large sample of the community we anticipate made their decision, not that it was not available because it had been rejected a few weeks earlier by some other smaller group of participants. --В²C☎ 22:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Then we differ on that point, because I'm anticipating that the "finality" of the decision will be weak no matter what. Indeed, the more options you offer, the weaker it will be. If there was an option that enjoyed clear consensus, it would have been discovered by now. Any discussion based on ranking choices brings points into the matter, and any result that's at all close, the supporters of the second or third choices would likely want to see how they'd do one on one with the "winner", and the closeness of the discussion would support the idea that the consensus wasn't all that solid. Or perhaps they might take issue with whatever point system was used, and suggest that another one would be better, and would show what consensus really is. Theoretically, it might not be close, but since that would require the clear consensus that has been so elusive this far, so I think we can leave that to the realm of the theoretical. We could even run the same ten suggestions in a discussion every year and even wind up with a different result depending on who was participating! True, we might learn that certain options are very unpopular, but we already know that. We don't really need to run more trials to generate more "proof" because someone might possibly object that there hasn't been enough proof already.
And if you don't use points of some kind, then you have people giving their opinions of ten different possibilities, and then some admin (who I feel bad for already, and the RM doesn't even exist yet) is going to have to wade through all that and try to "feel out" (because they can't actually count the !votes, because that'd be using points) and try to determine which of all the options have the most support and the best arguments and go with that. There's no way that won't be controversial. Indeed, that's basically what happened in Move 6 (the one that moved to "Sarah Jane Brown"), and it clearly hasn't proved uncontroversial, and it hasn't stopped move requests from being generated because, hey, here we are.
Either way, since you have ten options instead of two options, you risk splitting the vote so much you wind up with something that only about 15% of participants really favor and only 40% generally support, which is exactly the sort of thing that leads to disputes over what consensus is, and if there might not be something amongst the other nine (or something else still!) that would be better, which is where we are right now.
You say above that it's like Yogurt or Ivory Coast or Las Vegas or Big Ben, but it isn't like those at all. Those were binary choices ("h" or no "h", English or French, include state or don't, obscure but correct or common but incorrect). This is not; it never has been. People have offered many suggestions. You want to offer ten possibilities.
For a proposal that's intended to make things clearer, it can only make things murkier (or, at best, leave us where we are now). I really do wish you'd reconsider. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Good points. Well, if this approach does not result in a clear obvious preference, then the closing admin is certainly free to identify the top two choices among all of these, and then we can have a run-off RM. That's what worked at Talk:Sega Genesis. --В²C☎ 23:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Include drawback considerations?
I added some considerations under each of the choices[8], but it has been reverted (twice) for being biased and not objective, but no specific problems were identified. Perhaps (it's hard to see one's own biases), but the intent is to inform participants of previously identified primary drawbacks (if applicable) for each, fairly. I won't dispute that my summaries were imperfect, but I still think it's a good idea. For example, in the past others did not realize the misogynistic drawbacks of "wife of ...". What is the harm in identifying this problem with that choice? With that brought to their attention, they can make more informed choices, it seems to me. If there are specific problems of bias, why not just fix them? Let's fairly summarize the primary drawbacks of each choice, so everybody knows. Okay? --В²C☎ 00:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Aside from giving your personal opinions primacy, you certainly were not listing drawbacks. Well, you did for the options you personally disfavour, but used positive language for those you are more supportive of. If you want people to make a decision, let them make a decision. Don't poison the well in your quest to add another notch to your user page. Resolute 00:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing the notches. Those are not my personal opinions - they are consensus opinions as best as I can understand them. Again, why not fix the issues you see instead of throwing out the whole thing? You didn't address anything I said, and did not explain how providing information as objectively as reasonably possible (think "voter pamphlet") is "poisoning the well". --В²C☎ 00:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Drawback considerations make sense, especially to users who are not entirely aware of the intracacies of the situation (for example, some users really might not know what Sarah Brown is most famous for or whether Jane is used as part of her name or not). It is incredibly difficult, however, to make these neutral. If they are to be done, I suggest a (very brief) bullet point giving the general advantage and a (very brief) bullet point giving the general disadvantage. For example,
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
Disambiguates with most common description
Might be taken as sexist
Sarah Brown
Uses standard name for subject
Not primary topic
Sarah Jane Brown
Cannot think of a positive, sorry. Disambiguates from other articles?
Jane not used by reliable sources and not recognisable to readers
Sarah Brown (campaigner)
Disambiguates with common description
But not most common description
We should all be able to agree on a quick advantage and disadvantage for each. Just keep them short enough not to be too leading. The alternative might well be having some editors vote on an issue they have not looked at in enough detail, unfortunately. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
This whole thing is ill-advised, as the most recent RM was just closed -- but hypothetically: you cannot guarantee who will make selections or what they will know or not know. And you cannot tell them what you think they should know without it being biased. And building a truly neutral list is problematic, and the attempt involves yet more re-hashing, and there will be disagreement on whether or not any particular advantage or disadvantage is indeed an advantage or disadvantage. If you want people to select from a list, give them the list. Period. Omnedon (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Omnedon and Resolute, do you think we should not have voter pamphlets for elections? If you're okay with voter pamphlets, why the objection to this? Conceptually, it's the same. --В²C☎ 01:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you even read what I just wrote? That give the reasons for my objection. Omnedon (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
As have I. Also, if you think this is like an election, then you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is. I do not think that is the case. What you are doing, however, is pretty much undermining your own case as you have to build a consensus for a different - and policy compliant - disambiguator if you want change. All you are shaping up for here is a no consensus (at best) and no change. And since we both know that you won't drop the stick at that point, another round of wasted time. You and the IP are the only two pushing for this. So just pick an alternate you think is best between yourselves - that is policy compliant - and make your case. Resolute 02:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
On further reflection, recall that RMs are supposed to be persuasive. WP:RM includes the sentence 'Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral.' If anything, B2C has the opportunity to be even more leading, if he or she so wishes. I suggest, instead of doing that, to provide generally held views for each title to add a bit of context, similar to the examples I suggested above. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Omnedon, I read what you wrote. Your answer is what caused me to ask what you thought about voter pamphlets. And, no Resolute, this is not exactly like an election. But that does not mean the analogy and question are inappropriate or irrelevant. There are similarities. No analogy is perfect. Whether an analogy is apt depends on the situation and how it is being compared. In this case I'm comparing a WP RM discussion to an election, both of which are processes intended to elicit the positions of people on certain issues, as fairly as reasonably possible, and without undue influence. So it makes sense to ask why it's reasonable to summarize the pros and cons of the issues in an election (via a voter pamphlet), but not in an RM discussion (via a short list). Of course there are differences - but how do those difference explain why a voter pamphlet is appropriate but a summary of pros/cons here is not? --В²C☎ 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Sarah Brown" has been rejected multiple times. The inclusion of this choice right after the closure of the last move request that explicitly used that option failed, is clearly wrong. If you want that option, wait for next year's October (2015 October), as it has failed multiple times this year, so this is clearly not an available choice. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
A couple of questions
A couple of questions addressed to the small number of people who are still obsessed with moving this article despite the evident lack of consensus for every single alternative thus offered:
When were you thinking of providing a policy-based rationale for moving it at all, rather than one based on devotion to foolish consistency?
When were you thinking of notifying the large number of people who have already voiced an opinion, albeit one you don't like, or were you hoping to slip one past the goalie while he was looking the other way?
For the record: my view is still firmly that there is no problem to fix, and every suggestion made thus far introduces problems that would need fixing, and would best be fixed by moving it right back to the current title. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Last I checked, WP:NATURAL was part of WP:AT, which is policy. The current title clearly contradicts that policy, and this has been repeatedly explained. On the other hand, though adherence to the consistency criterion is also a good policy-based reason to change a title, that is not a factor here.
In fairness to B2C, he was always clear that everyone who particiapated in a previous RM would be contacted when they are done... brainstorming. Resolute 02:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
What about putting each selection in one of three categories?
It occurs to me that asking participants to order all of the choices might lead to unintended distinctions. To address this, what about asking participants to place each choice in one of three categories. Sample instructions:
Assign each choice in the box to one of these three categories: Acceptable/Preferred, Acceptable/Satisfactory, and Unacceptable. For all acceptable choices, explain why it's preferred or merely satisfactory. If others claim that choice violates policy, explain why you disagree or choose to invoke WP:IAR. For any Unacceptable choice, explain how it violates policy.
I think this should give us, and the closer, a clearer view of what is going on. What do you think? --В²C☎ 00:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
For example, I'm probably going to respond something like this:
Acceptable/Preferred
Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister)
This disambiguator reflects what she is primarily notable for; no issues with policy.
Acceptable/Satisfactory
Sarah Brown (née Macaulay), Sarah Brown (born 1963), Sarah Brown (charity campaigner), Sarah Brown (campaigner), Sarah Brown (health and education advocate)
All these are okay but inferior to spouse of Prime Minister because they distinguish her from the other uses of "Sarah Brown", but don't reflect what she is notable for.
My specific choices and reasoning aside, does this look like a reasonable way to express our views? --В²C☎ 03:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Multiply the size of that box by n responses. All you would create with this format is a huge mess for any closing admin to wade through. Resolute 03:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It might be better to create a table with four columns: "user", "acceptable/preferred", "acceptable/satisfactory" and "unacceptable" just for entering the titles. Reasons could then be given in a discussion thread below. That will keep all of the votes together to help the closer. Splitting acceptable into two categories is a good idea. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister) seems bad, since (1) "Prime Minister" is capitalized, (2) she's not the wife of any current prime minister (3) does not indicate what prime minister this is about, "Sarah Brown" isn't the title given to wives of prime ministers (unlike FLOTUS). Sarah Brown (spouse of one UK prime minister) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minster Gordon Brown) would fix those issues -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Remember, the purpose of parenthetic disambiguation is not to fully describe the topic, but to distinguish it from other uses of the same name. Since spouse of prime minister (yes, no caps) can only apply to one Sarah Brown, that should be sufficient. I think the others you suggest are overly precise in comparison. --В²C☎ 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
People keep asking this question and apparently missing my answer, so I'm creating this section to keep from having to repeat it any more.
The disambiguator in this title, "Jane", is not in parentheses. Because it's not in parentheses, and not separated by a comma, WP:NATURAL applies to this title, which states: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English. Since this person is not commonly called "Sarah Jane Brown", it does not meet this criteria. Not even close. Note we're not arguing it is merely insufficiently used to meet the "also commonly called" criteria; it's that it's NEVER used (by reliable sources, which is what matters) to call her that.
And this isn't wiki lawyering (in case anyone is wondering) or WP:JDLI rationalizing just to oppose an unliked title. The reason this title is unacceptable and so must change is that titles disambiguated without parentheses are supposed to be recognizable as commonly used references to the topic. This is important because people can and do rely on WP titles to accurately reflect how topics are typically named. Sarah Joy Brown, for example, is not a misleading misnomer like this title is. Her own website refers to her with (as well as without) the "Joy" middle name. So do reliable sources, like TV Guide [9]. So when people go to that article and see the title Sarah Joy Brown, they are not being mislead, because that is her full name.
But there is nothing like that supporting "Sarah Jane Brown" for this topic. Nothing. When people go this article and see the title Sarah Jane Brown, they are misled into thinking this is her full name. At least one website is already perpetuating the misnomer, and it's our fault. We need to fix it; the sooner the better. --В²C☎ 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Above, you claimed stridently that this issue was not key. Clearly that was not true. You continue to make this spurious claim that she dropped her middle name when she got married. There is no evidence of this. There is no "misnomer" here, and no "misleading" is taking place, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the site you mention, which shows her full name as Sarah Jane Brown, got that information from this article. Of course there is support for this being her name: her name was Sarah Jane Macauley before she got married, and there is no reason to make the assumption (for that's what you are doing) that she "dropped" her middle name. Please stop making unsupportable statements as if they are absolute facts. They are not. They are your opinions, and highly questionable ones at that. Omnedon (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't matter whether the Jane middle name was dropped or retained when she married. What matters is that it's not used by her nor any reliable source. Not even one. It also matters that our using it is therefore misleading and harmful, because it wrongly conveys that she is known as "Sarah Jane Brown". She isn't. --В²C☎ 06:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not misleading or harmful. It *is* her middle name. No *harm* comes from people knowing ahead of the info box what her middle name is.
Yes, we should prefer the latter, though they are equally misleading. We have no more basis to say her middle name is "Jane" than to say it is "Joe". There are NO reliable sources supporting the Jane-IS-her-middle-name position. None. Zero. Zilch. However, while they both titles claim (implicitly or explicitly) that her middle name is "Jane", only the first one who suggests she is commonly known as "Sarah Jane Brown" - at least the second one does not do that, so it should be preferred. --В²C☎ 16:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You stated your opinion (yet again). It is your opinion, not fact. I disagree with your opinion. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds: we have no need to allow the hobgoblin of foolish consistency to override perfectly practical common sense. The title is 100% accurate and 100% neutral, people find their way here form the dab without any difficulty whatsoever, there is no problem to fix as far as the reader is concerned. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have facts and opinions conflated. The following are facts (not opinion):
Before marrying Gordon Brown her middle name was "Jane" and her full name was "Sarah Jane Macaulay".
There are no reliable sources supporting the claim that she retained the middle name "Jane" after marrying Gordon Brown.
There are no reliable sources that refer to her, or have ever referred to her, as "Sarah Jane Brown".
Despite the absence of any reliable sources supporting this, the current title never-the-less suggests her full name is "Sarah Jane Brown".
The following are opinions totally unsupported by reliable sources:
She retained her middle name after marrying Gordon Brown.
Facepalm People do not, in the normal course of affairs, legally drop their middle name upon getting married. That isn't to say that it is has never happened , but if/when it does happen then it'd be a highly unusual circumstance. The burden of proof is upon you to prove the claim that "Jane" is no longer her middle name. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, whether "Jane" is no longer legally her middle name is irrelevant to the indisputable fact that not one single reliable source has ever referred to her as "Sarah Jane Brown", let alone sufficient reliable sources to warrant using this title per WP:NATURAL. --В²C☎ 18:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It is quite relevant. If it is her legal name, whether commonly in use or not, it is a good a choice as any to disambiguate. From the policy page you cite, pay attention to "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary...more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.". This certainly qualifies as a situation in need foe that latitude. You're almost to the point here where someone will ask for you to be topic-banned so we can all get some peace. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
B2C: I'm afraid you still seem not to grasp the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence: that a person may not be referred to using their middle name is not an indicator that that person no longer possesses a middle name. Sarah Jane Macaulay took Gordon Brown's surname; that's not in dispute. I find no source saying that she also formally dropped her middle name. Do you have a source saying she did? If you have a source, please share it. Otherwise your insistence on pursuing this rather bizarre idea is simply source-less speculation that's doing nothing but pointlessly bloating your already massive wall of text. ╠╣uw[talk] 18:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Huwmanbeing, please pay closer attention. IF my argument was based on the premise that "Jane" is not her middle name, then you would have a point. I would need to produce evidence that "Jane" was not her middle name (a reliable source saying so), and citing absence of any evidence that it is her middle name would not be evidence that it's not her middle name. Of course. I hope it's now clear to you that not only do I understand the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence, but that I'm not even claiming "Jane" is not her middle name. Anything that even suggested that has been gone from the draft proposal since last week, and has never been part of this sub-section. Please stop with the straw man argument.
The issue is not whether "Jane" is her middle name, but whether she is sufficiently commonly referred to as "Sarah Jane Brown" for us to use that as our title per WP:NATURAL. The burden of proof regarding whether "Sarah Jane Brown" "is an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources", as WP:NATURAL (part of WP:ATpolicy) requires, is on those who support this title, and that burden has not been met; not even close. --В²C☎ 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
B2C: I'm doing my best to keep up with your shifting positions. You claimed above, "once she was married she dropped her middle name, adopted her husband's surname, and her full name became Sarah Brown. Her name is not, and has never been, Sarah Jane Brown."[10] If you now say you no longer hold that view, then on that point we're cool.
As for WP:AT, that policy explicitly sets naturalness as a goal rather than a rule, and says that the choice of title in unclear situations like these should be established through discussion — and indeed the current title was.
As for sources: I don't see anyone arguing specifically that RS do include the middle name with great frequency, so to insist on support for a claim that others aren't even making is disingenuous. Sarah Jane Brown (the subject's name, as we agree) simply emerged as a reasonable solution to a unique set of circumstances in which there was considerable disagreement over various disambiguators... and I don't see much evidence that that's changed in the relatively brief time since the previous discussions. ╠╣uw[talk] 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Huwmanbeing, my position has not shifted. When I wrote "she dropped her middle name" a week ago elsewhere (why are you addressing in this section words that have been written elsewhere rather than words written in this section? Such disjointed discussions are confusing.), I meant she no longer used it. That is, in public information in which she specifies her name she does not include her middle name - thus, "she dropped her middle name". You may quibble about whether "she dropped her middle name" clearly means "she does not use her middle name in publicly available information", but that would be arguing semantics. I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that. What you can't deny is that she does not use her middle name in publicly available information, which was the point there, and a relatively minor one at that. The much more important point is that no reliable sources refer to her as Sarah Jane Brown.
Finally, surely you understand that the current title is a textbook example of WP:NATURAL disambiguation (as opposed to parenthetic or comma-separated disambiguation). It is WP:NATURAL that requires such titles reflect common usage, not me. But I explained this in the opening post to this section. Did you read that? I'm pointing out that RS do not use the middle name because WP:NATURAL requires it (and thus this title is contrary to policy), not because others are arguing RS do use the middle name. Do you really not understand that, or are you playing dumb? --В²C☎ 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with B2C that this is not the title reliable sources use to refer to her, so I would support a different title for the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, while there is no requirement for parenthetic disambiguation to be supported by usage in reliable sources (like there is for WP:NATURAL disambiguation), even Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) has more support in reliable sources[11][12][13][14] than does Sarah Jane Brown. --В²C☎ 21:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) is a better title for this biography (more recognizable, contains the "Macauley" by which she was for some time primarily known, uses all three names frequently used to identify her), it is hard to get over someone repeatedly overstating "need"s for change, and generally bludgeoning the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for not posting a straw man argument. It's refreshing! --В²C☎ 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
DRAFT: title choice table
Feel free to improve this table. The goal is to make it informative and objective. This will be part of the RM proposal. --В²C☎ 22:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What shall the title of this article be?
Choice
Title candidate
PROS
CONS
SJB
Sarah Jane Brown
"Jane" is her middle name.
Reliable sources do not refer to her as "Sarah Jane Brown" so it's not WP:NATURAL disambiguation in this case.
Delete the first column. Redundant to second, requires study to understand the abbreviations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I second that. An abbreviation soup of votes would more likely be confusing than simplifying. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the first column tags is to allow for compact !voting, yet still more readable to the closing admin than just sequentially assigned meaningless letters (A, B, C...). --В²C☎ 23:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't use ALLCAPSSHORTCUTS as English words. This is jargon, creating a barrier to newcomers. Instead, use standard English. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is "Alludes to inherited notability" a CON? Her notability is inherited. --В²C☎ 00:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
"Inherited notability" used to be a big no-no at WP:N. It's not there anymore. Even if only of inherited notability, this article would be a justifiable spinout from Gordon Brown. "Alludes to inherited notability" removed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems a bit silly, I don't think anyone would consider it. She once went by her maiden name, but given that we have complete proof that it is no longer part of her name and that it certainly doesn't fit the common name requirements, I'm not sure if there is any pro to having it.--Yaksar(let's chat) 01:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree, but as the first version, it should be noted, if not listed as an option. WP:RETAIN would see it as the default, but I think the status quo (Sarah Jane Brown) should be considered the default should there be a finding of no consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The implicit if not explicit intent of WP:RETAIN (per WP:COMMON) would see it as the default only if there was no preference between it and another title. If the original title is X, we don't go with X if we can't decide between Y and Z. RETAIN only favors the original title X if we're trying to decide between X and Y or X and Z, and can't reach consensus. At this point nobody has favored Sarah Macaulay since the first RM. --В²C☎ 01:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, WP:RETAIN only applies to varieties of English anyway. --В²C☎ 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:RETAIN is an excellent principle that generalises well. However, I think we are agreed that Sarah Macaulay is not a viable option, inferior to the current, and that in the case of "no consensus", there should be no move? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Per above, I have deep reservations about the wisdom of this RM, but since it's going forward anyway... I edited the table, the "Pros" and "Cons" section is asking for trouble. The ordering was also weird; we know you don't like the current title B2C, but surely hiding it in the middle is silly, it should be first as the community has reluctantly settled on it as our current best guess. I changed the order and chopped out some of the more... contentious... alleged "pros" and "cons", like "spouse" being less sexist than "wife," and tried to group related titles together. (The word 'wife' is not the complaint here; it's phrasing the person only in respect to their spouse that's the issue, which doesn't change at all with that phrasing.) Or certain titles just flat asserted to be "contrary to policy" (O RLY, etc.). Cite relevant policy, sure, just don't prejudge... SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The ordering was determined randomly by someone else. --В²C☎ 20:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
B2C, I strongly disagree with your Pros for "Sarah Jane Brown". There is more leeway in the Cons section, but please, your phrasing implies that Jane was no longer her middle name after marriage, a claim which is unlikely in the extreme and which you have been unable to affirmatively source in this discussion. Everyone can non-controversially agree that sources don't generally refer to her that way, which is a legitimate con to the title. The implication that she actually removed the name meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL; this is something weird and non-standard, and requires direct sourcing to that effect. It's fine that you believe it, and you're free to advocate for it all you like, but it is *not* material to stick in the "pros" of an allegedly neutral table. It is at best a "Con" counterargument. SnowFire (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear what we're talking about, this is what the PRO for "Sarah Jane Brown" currently says: "Believed by some to be her name since "Jane" was her middle name before marriage.", and what you had it say before: "It's her name". That she actually removed the name is but one possible explanation for why no sources use it, but it is not necessarily implied. That she stopped using it is another possible explanation. We don't know, and it doesn't matter. What does matter is that we determine what is a name in WP based on usage in reliable sources, and by that gold standard "Sarah Jane Brown" is quite simply not her name. Some never-the-less believe it is her name because "Jane" was her middle name before marriage. That's a fact. We can't say anything else definitively. That's the point. --В²C☎ 22:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of evidence otherwise, her full name is most reasonably presumbed to be "Sarah Jane Brown". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of the acronym NMI? Lots of people don't have a middle name (nor middle initial). Her full name is at least as likely to be "Sarah Brown" as it is to be "Sarah Jane Brown", especially since there is NO evidence that it is the latter. --В²C☎ 22:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, familiar with NMI, or NMN. Have never heard of anyone legally dropping a given middle name. Sure, they may not use it, but given names are well presumed to persist in the absence of evidence otherwise. No, the first is not "at least as likely". Evidence that she once had the middle name Jane is evidence that she has a middle name Jane. You are making an extraordinary claim without evidence. And it is an unnecessary claim. And you serve no purpose in making it repeatedly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Stop with the straw man. I am not claiming it is not her middle name. I am not claiming she dropped her middle name. I am only stating, in response to the claim that "Jane" is her middle name, that that claim is unsubstantiated. That "Jane" MAY no longer be her middle name. It MAY be that she dropped her middle name. Or it MAY be that it is still her middle name. We just DON'T KNOW. What we do know is that neither she nor reliable sources use it to refer to her, so neither should we. --В²C☎ 23:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
ALLCAPS don't make you right either. Sources have substantiated that her middle name is Jane. That is sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sufficient for what, exactly? Please be clear, or is your argument reliant on semantic ambiguity? Sources stating her middle name before her marriage was "Jane" are not sufficient to state her name now is "Sarah Jane Brown". --В²C☎ 23:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes they are. You are also erroneously assuming that "her name" is a single defined name. That she styles herself "Sarah Brown" doesn't mean that "Sarah Jane" is not also her name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Another straw man? Really, I don't provide enough argument so you have to make some up to refute? Never have I assumed that she has a single defined name. Nor have I assumed she has multiple names. I'm not assuming anything. All I know is that the only name she goes by now, and has since her marriage, is "Sarah Brown". I know of no evidence indicating "Sarah Jane" is or is not her name. --В²C☎ 00:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
"her name now is", with your emphasis on "is", implies singularity of name. Combining sources, not even close to violating WP:SYNTH, allows us to conclude her full name is "Sarah Jane Brown" in British styling, or arguably "Sarah Jane Macauley Brown" in American styling. But back to basics, there is nothing inherently wrong with the current title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a blatant violation of what WP:NATURAL (policy) explicitly states, and what it states is for good reason. --В²C☎ 01:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion of your reading of a line of policy as edited by you, and I disagree with it. Middle name disambiguation is natural disambiguation, is preferable as such, whether or not an ALLCAPS version as-written differs. I support "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) because it is more recognizable, not because the current is a moral violation, but I also see that this option did not win the discussion, evident in RM6 and the Move Review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Middle name disambiguation is in general "natural" disambiguation (colloquial definition), but in this case it's not WP:NATURAL disambiguation (WP policy definition). What WP:NATURAL explicitly states is: "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" (my only edit was adding the standard "reliable sources" clarification which is inconsequential here). How else can one reasonably interpret that for this case other than "'Sarah Jane Brown' does not qualify"? Now, you may disagree with that policy, but then you're invoking IAR, which is fine and perhaps even appropriate. But be clear about it if that's your position. Don't hide it behind a fog of straw men and lame "that's your opinion" arguments. It would be helpful if you were clear about whether you agree with the WP:NATURAL wording in general, but just think it should be ignored in this case, or if you think the restriction to "also commonly called" names needs to be removed from WP:NATURAL. --В²C☎ 02:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
No. You overstate arguments beyond "objective" to the point where it has to be disagreed with. If it were you own !vote, it would be fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Now what are you on about? I'm asking you about your opinion and your position regarding what "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" means with respect to "Sarah Jane Brown" and this subject, and why. Why are you responding in terms of anything I've ever said anywhere? Can you blame me for thinking you're dodging? --В²C☎ 03:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
My opinion on titling policy? It is far softer, less decisive, less dogmatic, than your preferred interpretations.
Dodging? I have already said everything at least once. I disagree with some of your interpretations, for reasons already given. You don't have to agree with my disagreement, but I do allege that you are not being objective with respect to your planned pre-stated pros and cons for the current title. In over-controlling your "DRAFT: title choice table", you are poisoning the well with respect to arguments in support of the status quo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
You're dodging again. I ask for your opinion about how a specific phrase in WP:NATURAL should apply in this case, and you answer a much more general question (your "opinion on titling policy") and answer that relative to your (misguided) opinion of my opinion on titling policy, which is not what I asked, and then go on about disagreeing with some of my unspecified interpretations, and drift into (criticizing without specifics, again) my lack of objectivity on the pros and cons etc. What does that have to do with the specific question I'm asking? Nothing. You're ranting and dodging. --В²C☎ 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think “sexist” is the wrong word here. Identifying any person primarily by a connection to some other person is arguably disrespectful, as if implying that the connection is more important than anything about the actual person. It’s like saying “James McCartney (son of Paul McCartney)” rather than “James McCartney (musician).” I hope I’m making sense here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Honestly B2C, it is very difficult to take your yellow-highlighted claim asking editors to "Feel free to improve this table. The goal is to make it informative and objective" when you seem insistent on taking WP:OWNership of it, and are edit-warring against multiple editors to retain your personal, POV opinions. It serves as a microcosm of the larger issue: You simply will not accept that you won't always get your way. Resolute 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The goal of the table, like the ultimate goal of the forming RM, is a result that is acceptable to all participants. The chief characteristic of the evolution of the table is compromise and adjusting, not repeated reverts. That's a sign of developing consensus. Lead, follow or get out of the way. --В²C☎ 16:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you may need to pay more attention to NY Brad's post below, where, barring a last minute sea change of opposes, will eventually close with a solid support of a 6-month moratorium, which will short-circuit this entire farce. On the slim, 1% chance that an RM is actually held, though, we certainly will not be posting a voting table with pro and con columns. You don't get to pre-judge the choices, editors can coem to their own decisions on the merits of the choices. But really, as the moratorium looms, that's largely an academic point only. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: Extra rider on the next RM
This is now now the 9th RM on this page. I propose that the next RM be closed with the extra rider, "Any further RM on this topic in the next year will be considered disruptive. Any admin may impose a block of two weeks' duration on any editor initiating an RM on this page within that period." GoldenRing (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems unnecessary. This is certainly the most thorough and pre-planned of the RMs we've had on this page, and will probably have the most conclusive answer (as long as half the votes aren't just "speedy close, this has happened before". After this one your plan might be logical though.--Yaksar(let's chat) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I might be misinterpreting proposal though, I don't know if by "next RM" you meant when this one goes live or if you meant the one after it.--Yaksar(let's chat) 16:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I can virtually guarantee you that the only result this RM will produce is more drama caused by the two people pushing it. "Oh, look, none of the options got consensus, but we have a plurality of votes. Lets redo the entire thing all over again by removing a couple options that we don't like." Resolute 16:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I hope that one of the options will clearly be found more significantly "Acceptable" than the others. But if it's close even after taking into account the "Preferred" factor (which is intended to be a tie-breaker), the recommendation to the closer in the draft RM proposal message is to select the top two and recommend a run-off RM between them.
Per RM6, thoroughly reviewed at WP:MR, consensus was found for the current title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This is certainly the most thorough and pre-planned of the RMs we've had on this page - so what's the problem with making the result stick for a year and going and doing something more useful instead? GoldenRing (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
What if the result is a toss-up between two titles and the close recommends a run-off between those two? --В²C☎ 23:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, history indicates a result like this will be accepted by the community and no moratorium will be required. Let's try to resolve this without heavy-handedness. If that fails, then we can seek invoking administrative actions, etc. --В²C☎ 23:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
