Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Displaytitle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Open for three months. Multiple opposers gave rationales why it would be confusing, and potentially WP:POINTy. Clearly no consensus to proceed with this idea. [Non-admin closure.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

---

It is possible to retain the current title but not display "Jane" like so. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Technically possible but it should not be done: it will only confuse editors readers about the correct page title. They might e.g. think the page is actually titled Sarah Brown, then wonder why they are not at the disambiguation page. Many browsers hide the page address so there is no other indication of the page title. per Wikipedia:DISPLAYTITLE it should only be used when "the article meets the criteria for a non-standard title format", so e.g. starts with a lowercase letter, includes suffixed or subscripted characters etc..--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it could cause more confusion than the current title. --В²C ☎ 20:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The current title works as a means of disambiguating the name from other Sarah Brown's. Rendering it as "Sarah Brown" does not. As well as the above I would draw your attention to the end of the relevant paragraph at WP:DISPLAYTITLE:

Since 2013 it is not possible to hide part of the title with <span style="display:none;">...</span>.

I.e. hiding part of a title has been explicitly disabled. Working around that with <span style="position:absolute; top: -9999px">Jane</span> is certainly not how this magic word is meant to be used.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Altering the displayed title to something that is the title of a different page is obviously going to confuse. Attempting to do so is a WP:POINT violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The only reason we can't use the same title for multiple articles on WP is because we use the title in the URL - it's purely a technical limitation. If we did not use the title in the URL, like some other online encyclopedias, then we could use the same title for multiple articles as well. There is nothing confusing about it. DISPLAYTITLE is a nice work-a-round/compromise. It may have not been the intent to use it in cases like this, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be. --В²C ☎ 23:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Unlike wikisource, Wikipedia is written for humans. Humans reference works by title. No two pages on Wikipedia should have the same title. Further, titles should not be ambiguous. "Sarah Brown" is ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Brittanica is written for humans. Humans reference works by title. No two pages on Brittanica should have the same title. Further, titles should not be ambiguous. "Washington" is ambiguous. And yet.... Washington Washington Washington. Yes, they have subtitles that disambiguate. We should too. Or continue to use parentheses for that purpose. But we should not create unrecognizable titles by inserting obscure middle names for the purpose of disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 16:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Subtitles are part of the title. I expect the Britannica has no two articles sharing the same Title&Subtitle. Your argument about inserting obscure middle names has been made before, rebutted by responses that middle name disambiguation is common, and Jane has been used to reference this subject, including in two current references. It is not justification to confuse the big text at the top of the page with that of the disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet the consensus of the previous discussion was to do just that. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Not true. The consensus for that question was not asked. All that was established was that there was no consensus for moving to the especially clumsy and contrived alternative that was proposed. --В²C ☎ 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RE "the consensus of the previous discussion was to do just that." That's not quite true. The article was moved on RM6 in 2013 with a closing statement that found consensus not to keep the then current disambiguator (wife of Gordon Brown) followed by "So, given a set of several names that aren't all that great, I'm simply going to go with the most popular option here." [a headcount plurality] and frankly admitting that there was no consensus for any proposed new disambiguator and that policy was disregarded. All subsequent RMs could not agree on any particular different disambiguator, and I suppose there is still no consensus. But the truth is that there has never been a consensus for "Jane" in the middle. And that's the reason why this crops up time and again... Kraxler (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The current title has never had consensus support. --В²C ☎ 19:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Due to personal bias, the two of you are reading into the RM what you wish to read, rather than what is actually there. Consensus was the previous title was bad, and that the current title is the one that had the most support out of the available options. The current title is a result of the consensus of the community, there's no wiggle room there. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We agree there is consensus for using "Jane" as being preferable to the "wife of ...". But that doesn't mean using "Jane" has consensus support. It's just temporary as lesser evil, until consensus support can be found for a title that is not "wife of ..." nor uses an obscure middle name. --В²C ☎ 20:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean using "Jane" has consensus support, but as a matter of fact it does mean exactly that; that you cannot accept that is not our concern. But you are certainly welcome to try again in, oh, June 2017 or so? Tarc (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The current title found consensus in RM#6, ratified at WP:MR. ANy new move proposal should speak directly points made in RM#6 and its Move Review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The closer of #6 said, "I'm simply going to go with the most popular option here". That's not finding consensus for the most popular title. That's simply going with the title that happened to be "most popular" among those considered in that discussion. --В²C ☎ , 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There's substance to that, it belongs in the next nomination statement. So how to proceed, without annoying the rest of the community, and how to avoid a random half baked nomination in the meantime. I suggest where moratoria are suggested, RM nominations require a seconder. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I think we need a simple RM with three options:

1. disambiguation using her middle name (i.e. the status quo); or
2. disambiguation using her date of birth ("born 1963" or similar); or
3. disambiguation using her birth name ("née Macaulay" or similar).

With luck, we will get a clear answer, and then I suggest a moratorium for at least a year. Ferma (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with doing something that simple is it does not capture consensus. Let's say the results are evenly divided 3 ways. That looks like no consensus. But it might be that most of those who select two of the options would favor either of those options over the third. That would indicate a consensus for either of those two options. But that's not captured unless you ask for second choice as well as first choice, or something like that. --В²C ☎ 21:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • With approval voting, we can simply allow people to select any of the options, so the one with the most support will emerge. So for example you or I might vote for the second and third option. If there is no clear consensus for a change, we should stick with the status quo. (To avoid another misfire like last month, perhaps it might be helpful for someone to sketch out what that sort of move request might look like, in sandbox somewhere, for the next time we are allowed to discuss it?) Ferma (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And I think we need another move proposal like we need a hole in the head. And so do most of the people opining in the RfC above. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

The "Informing women of their rights" section needs more real life examples of how there is a lack of education of women's rights. For example, in the United States is in turmoil over the use of artificial contraception. In many locations, there are no clinics that can provide this medical care and inform them of the rights and options that they have. Many women do not know that they have the option of communicating with an confidential advocate who can help them through processes such as rape and convicting someone. It might also be helpful to tell how this can be achieved. Asher r1 (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2016

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: Not moved. A very clear consensus against the proposed title. There is some groundswell of support for moving back to the previous title Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). However, I don't see enough support to make that move here; if anyone wants to pursue it, I suggest starting a new RM with that title as the suggested target.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (charity director) – As mentioned in my !vote at Sarah Jane Brown#Proposal: Another moratorium (June 2015) I'm initiating a proposed move to Sarah Brown (charity director). The rationale for that move proposal can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 13#Occupation, over notable fact, as principal disambiguator, and I still support that rationale written over two years ago. I think the disambiguator-derived-from-the-disambiguation-page-and-never-really-discussed-on-this-article-talk-page is a solution likely to satisfy more editors (with increased guidance conformity as a plus) than the current middle name solution. Now please behave: a few words why you support or don't support this option should normally suffise, everything else has been repeated ad nauseam as far as I'm aware of. -- Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, Move back to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) and let's all stop trying to direct real world usage. Husbands of notable women, spouses, boyfriends girlfriends, male or female, can and do acquire notability this way. Our showbiz and reality TV BLPs are full of such incidences - so are our aristocracy and royalty articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's not really her occupation, and more importantly, she is not known nor notable for this. Joe Bloggs (hockey player) is fine IF Mr. Bloggs is known for playing professional hockey, but that isn't true for Brown and charities. The only good fallback if people really truly despise "Sarah Jane Brown" is Sarah Brown (born 1963). (But I don't think SJB is a problem anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. While, per above, I think SJB is fine, since this title clearly makes a large and persistent part of the editor community unhappy, I think I would be happy to support moving to Sarah Brown (born 1963) in a bid to end the constant RM discussions. SnowFire (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• oppose per Snowfire: she is not known for that, so it is not a suitable way to disambiguate the topic, and as such potentially confusing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, Move back to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). The current title needs to change because she is not known as as Sarah Jane Brown, but the proposed title is equally bad because she is not known nor notable for being a charity worker. The reason she is notable is due to her marriage to Gordon Brown, so I agree with In ictu oculi that it should be moved back to the title that reflects this. --В²C ☎ 19:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Not known as "Sarah Jane". Alternative forms Sarah Brown (Gordon Brown's wife) or Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) may also be considered. Other such examples include Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare's wife) and the no consensus discussion centered upon the proposed move of Catherine Blake to either Catherine Blake (William Blake's wife) or Catherine Blake (wife of William Blake). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Move to Sarah Brown (born 1963), it works for footballers and people in other professions, it's an acceptable disambiguator. Zarcadia (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Rename to Sarah Brown (some disambiguator) The current title is awful, misleadingly implying that she uses that name day to day (especially as "Sarah Jane" is a common double-barrelled forename) and is utterly unrecognisable given that the middle name is so little known. Timrollpickering 15:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, though I'd suggest Sarah Brown (charity campaigner). The previous page move was well intended but at the same time totally stupid. She isn't known as Sarah Jane Brown and the current state of affairs hinders anyone finding the correct person. If anything, Brown has used her profile (from being, ahem, wife of a UK Prime Minister) to campaign for children's causes. I can't imagine we're going to progress any further if we just argue for the original "(wife of Gordon Brown)" disambiguator. Sionk (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose / Retain current title - What's the big deal with "Jane"? The current title meets four or five criteria. Even when it doesn't meet "recognition" criteria, "Sarah Jane Brown" is still the best out of all other titles. It is natural; certain people can search her middle name "Jane". It is concise by the looks of it. It is precise; no other "Jane" at the moment. It is consistent with other people naturally disambiguated by middle names. The proposed name and other proposed alternatives are precise but fails to meet other criteria. "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" is recognizable and precise, but the current title outweighs that. George Ho (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Because it fails WP:COMMONNAME. She's overwhelmingly known just as Sarah Brown. We don't use middle names as disambiguators. This is long-established and it's not a good precedent to make an exception for her. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is better. Middle name disambiguation is completely normal and expected in the real world, traditionally, and especially in biography titles. The frequency of parenthetical titles on Wikipedia appears to affect some people's perception of what is normal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). Sorry Sarah, but this is the only reason anybody's heard of you! Failing this, Sarah Brown (some other disambiguator). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose move, keep current title. Nothing has changed since the last go-round. Mrs. Brown has a common name, so we disambiguate it in a perfectly normal and entirely BLP-compliant way. Every alternative seems to violate either WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not sure what BLP has to do with it. The fact is, it does currently violate guidelines. WP:MIDDLES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  So you've forgotten the many long-established Wikipedians who have expressed the strong view that titles like (wife of Gordon Brown) are sexist? The various titles suggested to date all seem to me to violate one of those two. And let's not forget that BLP and NPOV are policies, whereas MIDDLES is a style guide. We are entirely at liberty to ignore style guides. Guy (Help!) 01:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly this notable person needs to be moved to 'Gordon Brown's Wife' if we are going to deny her individuality lets not disguise it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title isn't great, but the alternatives (especially the "wife of Gordon Brown" non-starter) aren't either, and enough time and effort has been spent debating this that if a really good alternative existed, we would have already found it. Keeping the current serviceable title is better than flipping to another contentious alternative. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Sarah Jane Brown" is a perfectly acceptable title for this article. It unambiguously identifies the subject of the article. Adding an unnecessary parenthetical disambiguator is pointless. Deli nk (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Current title is fine. No need to replace it with any of the ugly, clunky alternatives just to acquiesce to some imaginary bureaucratic deity. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Deli nk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose just like last time, it is already at the best AT, per WP:AT. The arguments for something other than her middle name run from poor to extremely poor (Smokey Joe's cmt, probably explains some of that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per SmokeyJoe, Guy and Deli nk. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per many above, particularly Guy. Look forward to opposing again next year too. Resolute 21:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While rules are great, a person's full name is the best identifier and the current title is a natural way of handling the fact that Sarah Brown is not sufficient. Apart from its absurdity value, "wife of" is a poor choice because WP:NOTINHERITED means Brown must be notable in her own right for the article to exist. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  This, frankly, is rubbish. Every First Lady of the United States or spouse of a British Prime Minister has an article. Most of them are notable for nothing other than the status of their husband. And look at all the people who have articles merely because they were associated with Abraham Lincoln or Adolf Hitler at some point in their lives. If WP:NOTINHERITED was interpreted strictly we'd end up deleting hundreds of articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, not every British prime ministerial spouse has an article. #List of spouses of British Prime Ministers has a number of unlinked names.--Nevé–selbert 21:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Although you have to go back to the 1860s to find the first example, perhaps reflecting how coverage of spouses has changed over the years. Also most of the unlinked names were married to fairly forgettable PMs, though there are a few exceptions. Timrollpickering 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. However I would support moving instead to Sarah Brown (born 1963), though. Interestingly enough this Sarah Jane is not even mentioned on the Sarah Jane disambiguation page. Per WP:MIDDLES: "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." Another thing I've noticed is that quite a number of the incoming links to this article are currently piped as Sarah Brown anyway, so I think a disambiguator is probably the best way to go but not this one, since most people don't identify her as a charity director. Her notability chiefly derives from her being the spouse of the former Prime Minister (so Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is my second choice). To be honest, it is arguable that the most famous Sarah Jane in Britain is none other than Sarah Jane Smith of Doctor Who fame (certainly not the wife of Gordon Brown).--Nevé–selbert 23:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this move and I strongly oppose the sexist wife of title. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Is it sexist to have Philip (husband of Berenice I of Egypt) and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (husband of Claudia Antonia) as article titles?--Nevé–selbert 21:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Why can't we name the article "Sarah Brown" with a hatnote saying, "for the American actress see Sarah Joy Brown; for other uses see Sarah Brown (disambiguation)"? It may break some rule but it wouldn't actually do any harm and would serve the reader best, imo, so WP:IAR applies. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if this article were considered the primary topic, i.e. the one people are looking for over all others when they search for “Sarah Brown”, and would require moving both this and the disambiguation page currently at Sarah Brown. I.e. it is a whole other discussion which requires consideration of all the articles disambiguated by that page. From the links at the top of the page It has been considered before, so it might be worth reviewing those discussions before proposing it again.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in all (I think) of the earlier discussions and the only objections to this, like yours, were that it would break the rule WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. My point is that WP:IAR ("if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it") is a policy, and this seems to be the very kind of situation where it might reasonably apply. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If the result is "not moved", shall I propose another moratorium? George Ho (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The heat death of the universe would be an apporpriate point for review. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Necrothesp, are you strictly interpreting the policy? The spirit of "WP:article titles" is picking which title is best for general readers. Sadly, politics is the case of something gone muddy. "Sarah Brown" is commonly used, but it is now a dabpage. "WP:COMMONNAMES" hasn't used parenthetical disambiguation as an example yet. I read failed attempts to move the title back to "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)". Because "(charity director)" is the main proposal, I would see a "no consensus". If "(wife of Gordon Brown)" is re-proposed, I might consider. --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Unlike some others, this particular guideline (WP:MIDDLES, last sentence) needs strict interpretation for consistency's sake. We expect to look at the article title and immediately know what the person's common name is. Her common name is not Sarah Jane. Saying, "well, yes, we usually do that, but not always" certainly does not improve Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Her common name is shared by other people, therefore we use a disambiguation. The fact that some people are utterly obsessive over the idea that this must be parenthetical, is their problem, not Wikipedia's. There's nothing wrong with the current title. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For 37 years (1963–2000), she was known as Sarah Macaulay, which had also been the earliest title of this article. Sarah Macaulay Brown was suggested and not accepted in the 2009 discussion because she does not use her family surname as her middle name. However, there is no indication that she ever used "Jane", while she did use "Macaulay" for 37 years. Thus, if no other alternatives achieve consensus, "Sarah Macaulay Brown" may seem a more reasonable middle ground name than "Sarah Jane Brown". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that "Sarah Macaulay Brown" is a name of a type that is mainly an American construct and is simply not used here. It would be the equivalent of trying to disambiguate an American woman by adding a feminine suffix used for an eastern European name. Timrollpickering 12:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not obsessive. It's consistent and following guidelines. Either we should use full name disambiguation in every case or in no case. Mixing makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obsessive. Most of us see no problem to fix, we see the constant requests, always with the same arguments, and are reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's aphorism "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (as well as Einstein's definition of insanity). 15:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

By "most of us", I'm guessing you mean you! Contributions to RMs would suggest you don't represent "most of us" at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite ironic really, another editor quoting these things to me. I'm usually a big fan of WP:IAR and WP:BURO. But in this instance there's a very good reason for the guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It may have escaped your notice, but there have been a number of failed move proposals for this article over the years. Each time there is no consensus, and most of all there is no consensus that there'seven a problem to fix. The "us" I am talking about, is the majority who have failed to see any merit in any of the proposed moves. Guy (Help!) 01:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I was actually talking about RMs in general, not just this one. The only reason this one has attracted so much attention is because this lady is primarily know as someone else's spouse and there's a distaste for using that as a disambiguator. If she was primarily known for something we can easily disambiguate there'd be no controversy at all. The article would be moved to "Sarah Brown (blah)", job done. I have participated in hundreds of such RM discussions and moved many more articles without a discussion as one wasn't needed. To make this one an exception to that general rule makes no real sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Necrothesp, did you know that per WP:GUIDES, we can treat guidelines with our common sense and make occasional exceptions? Also, per WP:POLCON, we can pick policy over guideline as temporary injunction whenever two conflict. This means "WP:MIDDLES" needs some changes... or what? George Ho (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

George, please don't patronise me. You know how long I've been here. You should also know that I'm very far from being a stickler for "rules". I've explained why I think this particular guideline should not be varied. We always look to the article title to determine the common name of an individual. We would have to put "commonly known as Sarah Brown" after her name in the first line if we keep the article title as it is. Feasible, but inconsistent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that "(wife of Gordon Brown)" is very lengthy. However, why is calling her "wife" sexist or something bad nowadays for living persons? We use "wife of" for deceased historical figures. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It implies that her notability is inherited, and that she is a chattel of Gordon Brown. Guy (Help!) 01:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

When the article was first created it started as follows, "... is the wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and possible future Prime Minister, Gordon Brown". What makes her notable is being the wife of Gordon Brown. What's wrong with the title implying this? I don't see the chattel implication at all. A wife, today, simply means a female partner in a marriage. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• WP:MIDDLES? The relevant text, in entirety, would appear to be

  "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."

  Who wrote those Weasel words? It reads like someone's idea made up one day. Just because it was long ago doesn't make it a good idea. Disambiguating people by use of their full name is commonplace, and always has been, including in cases where ambiguity only arose well into the story. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This was debated, SmokeyJoe. Attempt to modify the rule failed(?) two years ago when "Sarah Jane Brown" was disputed (maybe again?) again and again. Also, Francis Schonken wrote the passage (well... the one before years of copyediting) when he created the guideline in September 2005, eleven years ago. George Ho (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. It begs the question of "why is it not advised?" A habit in 2005 that becomes custom is not the sort of thing that should be considered a hard rule. To be fair, the text was not, and is not, written as a hard rule. Lacking a good disambiguator, I see no reason to be constrained by that advice. The standard disambiguation would be

• Sarah Brown (born 1963)

and a better disambiguator, better for recognisability, is

• Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)

which actually is my personal preference. It is a great pity, in my opinion, that repeated RMs don't require seconders, and individuals can unilaterally put forward a formal proposal for a bad choice, consuming all the air. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Disambiguating people by use of their full name is commonplace, and always has been". No, it isn't. Whatever makes you think it is? If it was true we'd be dispensing with the vast majority of parenthetical disambiguators for biographical article titles, since most people, especially in the modern era, have more than one given name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

In the real world, I mean. The affection of titling with parentheses is a Wikipedia phenomenon. This is an observation of a Wikipedia oddity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever the merits of the "advice" that is rather bald in explanation, it's certainly not a command, either in form or in substance, and advice is subject to rejection. Obviously, one area where rejection of such advice is likely to occur is when a fixed paren cannot be agreed upon for a subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• I have never really understood the fuss about this. WP:QUALIFIER (linked from WP:TITLE) is the most relevant for disambiguating common names. Firstname Surname (Occupation/primary notability). WP:QUALIFIER (subset of WP:NCP) is even quite explicit: "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right." In her own right, Sarah Brown is noted for her charity work (as her bio makes perfectly clear) so if people are unhappy with Sarah Jane Brown (one of the other reasonable methods of disambiguating), the next policy, MOS and guideline compliant title would be 'Sarah Brown (Charity campaigner)'. I am generally uninterested in listening to endless arguments based on 'She is most notable for being Gordon Brown's wife' as it is incorrect as her biography is currently written, and even for notable people with notable partners its not general or even common practice as the guidelines show to do it that way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2016 (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.

Lead section

If you are concerned about the lead section, Born2cycle, I am starting a newer discussion. The titling goes over there, not here. If the concern is notability, let's discuss it. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Okay, I've moved my question from there to here. --В²C ☎ 01:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Once and for all: what is wrong with Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)?

My update to the intro, putting what she is notable for first, being the wife of Gordon Brown, was just reverted[1]. Above, people are opposing "wife of", declaring it to be sexist or reducing her to chattel, without explaining how or why. And we have plenty of similar articles about people notably mostly for their marriage to someone more notable all of which refer to the subject as being "husband of" or "wife of" in the intro if not the title disambiguation:

Titles:

• Philip (husband of Berenice I of Egypt)
• Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (husband of Claudia Antonia)

Introductions:

• Denis Thatcher "was the husband of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher."
• Pat Nixon "was the wife of Richard Nixon, ..."
• Betty Ford "as First Lady of the United States from 1974 to 1977, as the wife of the 38th President of the United States, Gerald Ford"
• Rosalynn Carter "is the wife of the 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, ..."
• Nancy Reagan "was an American actress, and the wife of the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan"
• Barbara Bush "is the wife of George H. W. Bush, the 41st President of the United States, ..."
• Richard Blum, "is an American investment banker. He is the husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein."

Now, Sarah Brown and Gordon Brown were married in 2000. His WP page was created in January of 2002. Hers was created five years later in 2007 just before he became prime minister. The opening sentence of that initial article reads, "Sarah Macaulay (born October 1963) is the wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and possible future Prime Minister, Gordon Brown." Clearly, what made her notable was being the spouse of Gordon Brown. I don't see how that has changed.

So what is wrong with disambiguating her with the fact that makes her notable, or noting that fact prominently in the introduction, just like we do for all other subjects notably mostly for being spouses of more notable people? --В²C ☎ 01:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm.... maybe we should not compare historical figures to living persons. Let's find someone else still living disambiguated as "wife of" or "husband of". Priscilla Chan (philanthropist) should be a good example of discouraging "wife of"... right? George Ho (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Antiquated practice, now regarded as sexist, also at odds with NOTINHERITED. Also, the title is not the same as the lede sentence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, many of the first lady examples I provided above are still alive. Now I have yet to find an example using "spouse of" for a live person as disambiguation, but that's because it's a rather unusual category: the person has to be primarily notable for whom they married and they have to have an ambiguous name. SmokeyJoe, it's an antiquated practice? Regarded as sexist? By whom? Every news article I can find about her refers to her as Gordon Brown's wife. Maybe there are exceptions, but certainly not enough to support the position that doing so is antiquated or broadly considered sexist by reliable sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. --В²C ☎ 02:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your insistence for proof that this is sexist borders on kookery. "Referred to", or "reported as" is not the same as "titled as". An antiquated, but ongoing example is Princess Michael of Kent, but in modern time we do not do Princess William of Wales. The wife of John Smith used to be Mrs John Smith, but that is no longer considered acceptable by most. I am sure this is sourceable in the field of modern sociocultural anthropology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't naming something "sexist" some sort of political correctness? George Ho (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Does "politically correct" mean "bad"? Some affirmative action overreaches, wikt:politically correct has acquired a pejorative status, weirdly complicated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly, but certain people don't like being "corrected" or adjusted to conform to one group or another. --George Ho (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

———

Oh, baloney, SmokeyJoe. Parenthetic disambiguation as qualifier is not what someone is "titled as". Just because we qualify another Sarah Brown as "artist's model" doesn't mean she is "titled as" "artist's model" Sarah Brown (artists' model). Still waiting for an actual source rather than a vague reference to a possibility. --В²C ☎ 03:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your kooky titling theories, you'll hold onto them to you last breath, no matter what. The title is that heading 1 big text at the top of the page. The most prominent most important text of any article. The text that everyone will read, and many will only read. If the title includes a parenthetical qualifier, the parenthetical qualifier is part of the title. Putting in the title that someone is the wife of another is antiquated, common in antiquity, no longer our custom. You want me to find scholarly sources for that? No, its your interest, you go look, the repudiation of "wife of Gordon Brown" is a settled question, and you are working to further derail an already non-ideal RM discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• I request this section be hatted as disruption, it is disruptive to the RM discussion, it is backhandedly re-arguing a settled question, it is not in support of improving the article. It belongs nowhere more prominent than as another User:Born2cycle useressay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Withdraw all that, overreaction, misinterpretation of intent, not disruptive now that it is moved from the RM section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Going ad hominem? So soon? Smh. Anyway, nothing of the sort is "settled". Still waiting for some kind of backup to your claims. Here are some relevant titles all refering to her as his wife from a variety of sources:

• Sarah Brown, wife of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, appointed director of Harrods [2]
• Sarah Brown wife of Gordon Brown at Destiny Child Center Calabar [3]
• Sarah Brown In LA: Wife Of Former British Prime Minister On How She Seized ‘Wife Of’ Role [4]
• Sarah Brown Wife Of Gordon Brown Pictures and Images [5]
• Corrie’s Kym Marsh reveals Gordon Brown’s wife Sarah sent her a letter after tragic death of premature son Archie [6]
• Gordon Brown thanks 'incredible' wife Sarah as he stands down as MP [7]
• Sarah Brown, wife of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to receive honorary degree from Open University at Edinburgh's Usher Hall [8]

I can go on. And on. And on. But the point should be obvious: the claim that it is somehow inappropriate due to it being sexist or anything else to refer to Sarah Brown as Gordon Brown's wife in a title is preposterous, and not supported by common usage in sources. You've got no answer to my question beyond empty claims and ad hominem attacks. No wonder you want to close this section. Pathetic. --В²C ☎ 06:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you the points on links 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7. They really are titles, I'm shocked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • At any rate, my primary concern in this section is the introduction to the article. Your objection, such as it is, appears to be limited to the context of titles. So is there any objection to identifying her first as Gordon Brown's wife in the introduction on the grounds that this is what she is notable for? --В²C ☎ 17:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I would object to that. See Wikipedia:Writing about women#Defining women by their relationships. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I understand the viewpoint expressed in that essay. But the fact remains that SB is primarily notable for being the wife of Gordon Brown. In our sexist world it's more likely for a woman to be notable due to her spouse than vice versa, but a fact being lamentable does not make it any less of a fact. When a man is notable primarily for being the spouse of a more notable wife, we reflect that in the introduction (see examples above), and I'm sure we would in the disambiguation parenthetic remark if disambiguation for such a person were needed. Why should we treat female subjects of articles differently from male subjects? --В²C ☎ 19:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
        • None of the titles of the news sources you cite are biographies, let alone encyclopedic biographies, and history teaches something similar to the form of Mrs. Gordon Brown, as you advocate is not generally the way to disambiguate for a woman's biography, Eleanor is not Mrs./Queen Henry II, she is Eleanor of Aquitaine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• The newspapers B2C links, use the "wife of" construction in titles for their stories. Perhaps the newspapers are sexist and anachronistic. Perhaps they are not reliable, scholarly or reputable. Or perhaps some Wikipedians are trying to lead, rather than follow, the sources. In principle, Wikipedia should follow its sources.
  The line "married to" or "wife of" is in the lede, so the issue addressed here must be of the order of the sentence. It is last, B2C tried putting it first. Advice from WP:LEDE and MOS:INTRO doesn't seem to address the order of lede points. I'd have assumed chronological ordering of the main points of notability.
  The one thing that does strike me is that the sentence construction "She is married to the former ..." implies that the marriage was to a former PM, whereas she was married to a man who became PM. 24 June 2007, this page read:

  Sarah Brown née Macaulay (born October 1963) is the wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, leader of the Labour party and soon to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown. She was also a founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications.

  I think it would be better to write that she was the spouse of a serving PM, GB, 2007-2010. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Here's what's wrong with it: this is the 21st Century and women are no longer chattels of their husbands. Wait, that was exactly the problem with it last time, hence the consistent rejection of that title for at least two years now. So: this is WP:IDHT territory. The fact that you don't accept that it's offensive does not make it any less the case that enough people do think it offensive, that you won't get consensus for it. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm looking for basis in reliable sources for the claim that "wife of ..." is sexist, assumes female spouses are chattel, etc. Can you help? Thanks. I mean besides #62 on this dailywire "101 Things Feminists Say Are Sexist". --В²C ☎ 23:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Sexism and stupidity are not matters that can be evaluated by a formula—people are either aware of cultural norms or they're not. Many people have empathy and an understanding of the modern world, while some don't. Some editors would understand that for whatever reason their opinion is out of step and would drop a matter rather than repeatedly relitigating it, while some wouldn't. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
      • There is evidence of true cultural norms among reliable sources. People discuss it. They write about it. In reliable unbiased sources. They even make jokes about it. Here is a great bit on "black lives matter" (trust me). I'm having trouble finding such sources about this supposed cultural norm (that "wife of ..." is sexist or denotes chattel). I even find evidence to the contraryin usage in other WP articles. Only here on the talk page of this article, and one essay that stems from discussion here, plus some anti-feminist blogs, like the one I just cited above, is there mention of it that I can find. But I might be missing something - hence my request for help. --В²C ☎ 01:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

(de-indent) To the extent that this is a serious request for aid: you will find no such sources. Not because everyone else here is crazy, but because you are phrasing the argument as a straw man. Not even the most ardent feminist will argue that factual statements like "X is the spouse of Y" are inherently a problem. The 'problem' is one of emphasis. The following intros all offer equivalent (wholly made-up) information, but change the emphasis:

• Lord Norton Pompington III, Duke of Evenshire, was an Anglo-Irish noble. He married Lady Amelia Covington and had 5 children, of which his eldest, Robert, succeeded him as Duke. He would have been 67th in line for the throne had his maternal grandfather not been disinherited. He served in the British navy previously. Pompington was a convert to Methodism.
• Norton Pompington was a Commander of the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. He served with distinction on the frigate Invincible and defeated a Spanish ship near Buenos Aires in 1803. After his career was over, he was invested with a Dukedom at the age of 68, which he would pass to his eldest son Robert 5 years later, the son of his union with Amelia Covington.
• Norton Pompington was the husband of famed Welsh lay preacher Amelia Covington. Covington wrote a treatise on Methodism with him after their marriage called Reflections on the Soul, and her poetry was called 'touching' by several reviewers at the time. Pompington bought a commission in the Navy where he served for several years, and he and his wife were raised to Duke and Duchess late in their life.

Any one of these intros might be correct, depending on what exactly was really notable here (the military career? his time as a noble? his spiritual life?). However, the third reads a little grating, because it's talking about somebody else's achievements first. It is possible to recognize this fact without having it dominate everything else. SnowFire (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If there are three things one can say about somebody, say A, B and C, and only one of them is why the person is notable (they would not be notable with just the other two things), shouldn't that be where the emphasis should be, even if the one thing is a relationship to a more notable person? I mean, if the relationship is why that person is notable, then shouldn't that relationship be the emphasis? --В²C ☎ 23:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That is precisely what you are being told: no, it shouldn't be. Nobody really cares about the Kenyan economist Barack Obama Sr., but that's what he was, and that is correctly what he is introduced as. People should be introduced on their own merits, not by marriage or kin, unless that is truly all that is known about a person (certain ancient biographies), or sometimes in the case of hereditary nobility (which are their own special case, where lineage actually can be incredibly important.) SnowFire (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Precisely because nobody really cares about the Kenyan economist, he should be introduced as Obama's father. After all, that's why he's notable. If I'm at a party where people know my wife, and I introduce myself as her husband, because that's why I'm there, and that gives them context about who I am and why I'm there. Then, in later discussion, I might mention my occupation, other interests, family history, etc. This is normal. Intentionally avoiding mentioning the relationship that makes a person notable in their introduction (or disambiguation information) makes no sense. Anyway, this shows the issue is not sexist or has anything to do with anyone being perceived as chattel. --В²C ☎ 17:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

B2C, having your own opinion is fine and wonderful. You are expected, however, to understand the position of others. The sexism angle is because this issue - which I carefully used non "wife" examples of above - occurs far far far more with biographies of women than of men. ('The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.') Now if you think that this issue isn't actually a problem. fine, but for people who DO think it's a problem, then the sexism angle is obvious. You asked for help above. I've nicely explained this for you. Please drop the stick and stop attacking straw men. SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've helped me understand. Presumably due to historical systemic sexism women are more likely than men to be notable for their relationships, so identifying them accordingly probably appears sexist. But that doesn't mean it really is sexist, and the "solution" is artificial. Whether we identify Barack Sr primarily as an economist or Sarah Brown primarily as a charity worker it smacks of WP:Original research since reliable sources don't do that. No idea what straw men you think I'm attacking. --В²C ☎ 23:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing. Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is clearly the correct title. That's what she's known for. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and anyway we would always do the same for the husband of a female leader so it's not in any way sexist. If Philip May wasn't at the base name, I would certainly support him being Philip May (husband of Theresa May) rather than anything else. The current title of this article fails almost all our naming criteria, it's not recognizable, it's not her common name... nothing really. We should just be sensible and stop with the false offence taking.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru, I assume you meant "RfC" thread, which is below, right? George Ho (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I was responding to the specific question of whether there is "anything wrong" with using the disambiguator "wife of Gordon Brown". IMHO there isn't any valid reason why we shouldn't consider that as an option when deciding on this article title. Some people have seemingly ruled it out even if it was shown that that was the role she was most notable for.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  My mistake, Amakuru. In any case, would you vote on the moratorium please, down below. George Ho (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Taking the naming issue to the Mediation Committee in the future

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As I see, closing this discussion that I started before something escalates further is the best way. I'll revisit the idea next year or so. George Ho (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

---

After moratoriums and RMs, I don't think this talk page would handle any more of further requests, especially after the latest failed RM and the ongoing proposal for moratorium. I think about taking this to the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Sarah, Guy, Eggishorn, SmokeyJoe, Timrollpickering, and... User:Born2cycle. --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The solution is for everyone to stop posting on this page unless they have something new and substantive to say. Mediation would just be another place for people to argue—Wikipedia should not belong to those who are prepared to post more walls-of-text than their opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You can vote on the latest moratorium proposal, Johnuniq. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

More energy is spent by some on this page favoring suppressing discussion than for finding a consensus-supported solution. I won't name names, but it should be obvious. All this is very familiar - reminiscent of Yogurt, which has now had five years of stability and no controversy, though that was preceded by eight years of conflict which also was dominated by people trying to stifle discussion rather than find a solution. You can review the history for yourselves, here. Only when a serious concerted effort was made was consensus finally found. We have not had that here. What we know did not work there was efforts to convince everyone to just stop "wallowing in process". What we've had is a lot of people complaining about the process rather than engaging in the process. Sadly, now I'm doing that too, but, in my defense, I didn't start this sub-discussion. I'll just say again - I believe what we need here is a multiple choice RM, rather than a "keep current title" vs "one alternative" traditional RM. We've done plenty of the latter, and not once have we tried the former. I've seen it work for controversial titles before, and I believe it will here too. --В²C ☎ 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, Born2cycle, the consensus is close to agreeing the moratorium. If that happens, wait for another six months. If Mediation Committee can't stop further debates, a temporary moratorium might. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is that there is no consensus for a move to any of the titles thus far proposed (and in many cases a solid consensus against specific ones). That has been the case for a long time now. The disruption comes from those who refuse to accept this and are utterly determined to move it to one of a number of titles that have been consistently rejected. You don't get to keep asking the question ad infinitum and then complain that when people shout STFU already, they are repressing you. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why go to the MC now? What's the rush? The RfC is still (by normal standards) active and there's no reason not to wait for the outcome. Starting another iteration of this same issue on another noticeboard has every appearance of WP:FORUMSHOP. Let's let this play out first. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

All right, Eggishorn. I believe in what you say. I rescinded the MC consideration, I'll revisit the consideration when another RM fails, okay? --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Eggishorn, I hope that the moratorium proposal succeeds. Otherwise, I'll reconsider MC. Could not strike out "another RM fails" part yet. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• The main problem with this is you are asking them to mediate between one group of users that keeps demanding the same thing, and another that is not persuaded. There are only two possible outcomes: move or not move. Not move has won out over a period of years. Demanding a compromise between not moving and moving is exactly the same as demanding a move. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We should be preventing too many RMs, Guy. (ghai or ghee, how do you pronounce it? In French, it's ghee.) However, come to think of it, if moratorium proposal fails, then maybe I may consider MedCom (not ArbCom, which imposed sanctions on edits related to title-related rules). Otherwise, I would see another failed proposal in a rush. Therefore, MedCom can help you people cooperate together and agree whether another RM is needed or not. If needed, then either one title or multiple titles are proposed. If not needed... then good luck. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you opposed to trying a multiple-choice RM before escalating? If so, why? --В²C ☎ 21:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

...Just wait for the results of the moratorium proposal. Then, if failed, we'll talk about the future RM or MedCom. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a Borda count, or any other flawed vote count method. Instead, I'd suggest asking every participant to give every suggestion a score out of ten, and use that, by way of discussion, to shorten the list. I've seen this work OK where there are no clear leaders for preferred title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To shorten the list? I'd prefer to avoid a 2-phase system. We should be able to determine the consensus in a single survey. Borda isn't perfect, but for something this non-serious it should work well enough. What if we had two parts? In Part 1 each participant would choose SJB, (wife of...), or None of The Above. Part 2 is for choosing an alternative (which everyone does) in case None of The Above "wins" Part 1. Part 2 could be Borda. Something like that? --В²C ☎ 02:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If this is "non-serious", then review WP:TITLECHANGES, and stop wasting other's time. I agree it is non-serious, that there is no actual problem with the current title, but I am happy to contribute to discussion if others genuinely believe there is a problem. If a major proponent for destabilising the status quo admits on the side that it is "non-serious", then the conclusion is: Please stop the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Context, man. We're talking about a Wikipedia article title, not whether someone lives or dies, or even whether a tax should be raised. That's what I mean by "non-serious" - relative to serious real-world situations where Borda problems are more likely to matter, not relative to other WP issues. Now, if you are serious then please stop going off on ridiculous tangents and address the serious suggestion I made and asked you about. --В²C ☎ 16:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose of Borda for anything. It is easily gamed, innocuous things produce serious artefacts, the simplistic algorithm has long since been improved upon, and algorithmic decision making is to be avoided. I suggest scoring suggestions, and discussing the results. For example, I might score "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" at 3/10; "Sarah Jane Brown" at 7/10; "Sarah Brown (born 1963)" at 7/10; "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)" at 8/10. You can immediately infer that I will never support "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)", it is very seriously not acceptable, and I am not sure that you understand that a Borda count could up-weigh that unacceptable choice if worse choices were included on the list of choices. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, I just don't believe enough people will game things for it to matter. But anyway, we don't have to go Borda. But what about my two part idea where the first part is about picking among SJB, wife of, or None of the Above? And Part 2 to decide the favorite among alternatives that are not in part 1 (if None of the Above wins Part 1)? --В²C ☎ 04:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't like it. The "wife of" option is already rejected, and you are seeking to give it a preferred run. I would prefer to see all serious suggestions rated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to give it a preferred run. The whole point is to clearly establish that "neither" is preferred to SJB as well as to "wife of" so we can move on and focus on an alternative to both. My concern is that SJB is getting more apparent support than it deserves due to the strong rejection of "wife of" - that's why I want to add "none of the above to the mix". That said, I suppose rating all the choices might work out too. But how does the closer decide which one becomes the title? Just add them up and the one with the most preference points is it? I guess I'm good with that. And how do we decide which titles to put on the list? We should work that out now. There might be a list in the archives already. --В²C ☎ 20:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The theory would seem to be Independence of irrelevant alternatives. The purpose of rating is to focus attention on the front runners, as a method of focusing discussion. My guessed front runners have not been commented on by the majority, I guess because there are too many alternatives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Question for @JzG: I am trying to work out from above how many editors absolutely insist on "Jane"? The mechanism of binary choices here would seem to indicate, as Amakuru stated - almost a majority for (wife of Gordon Brown) and certainly a majority for anything but "Jane". How many editors in the above discussion insist on "Jane". I count 3 but I'm not familiar with all previous discussions. Would you or someone else mind doing a more informed count? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at a discussion from 2014, 19 opposed "(wife of Gordon Brown)", six supports (excluding nominator). George Ho (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Out of all opposes, four proposed "(philanthropist)". One support said "(Anything)" sarcastically. However, majority says nay to "wife". George Ho (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

At what point did WP:ITABSOLUTELYMUSTBEPARENTEHSES become the Sixth Pillar? I have no interest in exploring the numerous failed proposals any further. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, so what? Have you looked at the history of Yogurt? For years in RM after RM there was no consensus. Yet the same proposal kept being made to move Yoghurt to Yogurt, and the same objections were made, primarily citing the failed previous history, just like here. RM after RM, year after year, until finally there was one in which the same proposal was strongly supported. What changed? Nothing, really. No new arguments. Just people paid better attention and the arguments favoring a change made repeatedly for years to no avail finally prevailed. And the result? Peace and quiet, not one peep about the title, for five years in a row now. Stop complaining about efforts to resolve this situation so it can get resolved, finally, like Yogurt finally did. --В²C ☎ 20:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This is like yogurt in many ways, but unlike yogurt in that here there are not simply two leading choices. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's not yogurt

To address a point made above: yogurt is a misleading comparison. Nobody suggested that a stylistic preference for parenthetical naming meant we must name it "Yogurt (subservient to cheese)" or anything like that. The issue here is that Sarah Jane Brown is objectively the subject's name, whereas all the parenthetical suggestions require the subjective addition of a qualifier, which always seems to come with baggage, just to satisfy internal stylistic preference. The (wife) suggestion is the perfect exemplar. It is patronising, in the literal sense. It is comes across as "Sarah Brown (chattel of someone much more famous)". It is a horrible idea on many levels, but is supported by otherwise perfectly decent people because it's seen as the least-worst of the parenthetical choices, and presumably because they have not read Fattypuffs and Thinifers so can see parenthetical disambiguation as the only possible outcome. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• The use of middle names for disambiguation has been discouraged for a long time. This is from 2005: "Adding middle names (or their abbreviations) for merely for disambiguation purposes: not advised.". [9] . Anyway, the point of the comparison to Yogurt was not with respect to the details of the two cases, but with respect to how strongly that change was resisted for so long, and how stability only resulted after the change was allowed. It's objectively her middle name, but there is no support for its use among reliable sources. We have no grounds to use it. Disagree all you want, but that fact - that reliable sources don't use it to refer to her - is going to mean the current title is going to remain problematic until it's changed, just like Yoghurt remained problematic (for an entirely different reason) until it was changed. That's how these situations are comparable. If you still don't see that, perhaps you will once this title is finally changed to be in compliance with our naming policy, guidelines and conventions, and it finally remains stable for years after that. Like Yogurt. --В²C ☎ 22:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118105341/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/sarah-brown-launches-1-5-million-premature-babies-care-study-1.910608 to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/sarah-brown-launches-1-5-million-premature-babies-care-study-1.910608
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811010542/http://www.norad.no/en/thematic-areas/global-health/news/new-leadership-group-will-spearhead-drive-against-maternal-mortality to http://www.norad.no/en/thematic-areas/global-health/news/new-leadership-group-will-spearhead-drive-against-maternal-mortality
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151124141933/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=271108 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=271108
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702205228/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970629/ai_n14102173 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970629/ai_n14102173

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

RfC: Proposing the third moratorium

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

---

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

• Support. Slakr closed the last moratorium RfC as one year, so I support at least one year, preferably two. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The close was against the specific proposal with the closer explicitly stating as such so the basis of this RFC is false. The previous moratorium expired some months back and there's only been one RM since then, not the instant repeated proposals, usually by the same user, that merit such a restraint. Banning discussion does not create a consensus. Timrollpickering 00:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Tim, which time length of moratorium do you prefer? George Ho (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Scratch that. I misread your opposition. You can disregard this; no need to reply. George Ho (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Probably but complicated. I am a supporter of the admin closer of repeat contentious RMs holding a prerogative to declare a moratorium, where the default is 6 months for a consensus close, and 2 months for a non consensus close, counting from the date stamp of the close. This time, the closer User:Amakuru, didn't do that, but instead appears to imply permission for a relatively soon repeat RM for the highly contentious, previously repudiated, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), a title supported by a few and strongly opposed by more than a few. My personal preference, Sarah Brown (née Macaulay), which I came up with through slowly reading all the archives, has not had a run. Assuming the standard moratorium of 6 months, am I supposed to jump in at 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC) to unilaterally lock in my preferred proposal for the next cycle? No, I recommend both a moratorium (default = 6 months) and a requirement that at least two editors openly agree to the detail of the next RM proposal, and that if the next RM is for a return to a previous title (eg Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)) then the proposals are required to thoroughly summarise the relevant past. I also wish to point to WP:TITLECHANGES, and to note that the current title is acceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for many reasons. First, in general, I consistently oppose such moratoriums. Second, this is clearly an unresolved situation and probably needs a more sophisticated mechanism for finding a consensus favored solution. By "more sophisticated" I mean multiple choice, perhaps with weighting, rather than simply offering a single alternative to the current title. Finally, I've seen this many times before. Just because there is a history of unresolved RMs does not mean we can't or won't find a consensus solution with the next RM. It's a process that works, eventually, but not by impeding it with moratoriums... --В²C ☎ 23:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Keep asking until you get what you want is not a good way to run Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Guy, can you please describe the duration of the moratorium? More clarity would be helpful. George Ho (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A year. This has become old. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support for at least 6 months. This type of RM is the exact type of wallowing in process over function that drives away both new and existing editors. In this particular case, there is nothing that hasn't been discussed thoroughly, nay, exhaustively in recent discussions, and little is likely to change to alter the lack of consensus. Another RM in the near future highly unlikely to serve the purpose of the project in any substantive manner. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support for 12 months (but will settle for six). And I dont even like the current title... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - no reason to not try fixing this quarterly WP:COMMONNAME is a fairly important guideline that is applied fairly consistently across en.wp. The largest single voice in above discussion were those expressing support for WP:COMMONNAME. It won't hurt to have this discussion take place quarterly while the article sticks out like a sore thumb. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Or alternatively why can't Gordon Brown's wife simply change her name and start calling herself "Sarah Jane Brown", not doing so is highly inconsiderate of en.wikipedia. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, prefer 13 months. I'd like for the next ritual beating of the dead horse to take place after the winter holidays. --Carnildo (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• unable to discern the question Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Here goes, Elinruby: there have been too many RMs, especially before and after the title changed from "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" into "Sarah Jane Brown". Previous two moratoriums have been implemented per consensus, each after one failed RM. The third moratorium is based on another failed proposal to change to "Sarah Brown (charity director)". Every RM was initiated by a person who found "Sarah Jane Brown" the least commonly used name. However, there is no way to disambiguate this Sarah Brown, the spouse/wife of PM Gordon Brown. This moratorium is to hold off another RM for whatever time duration you prefer. Read all of it, especially links at the top of the page. George Ho (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I googled and was about to post something sarcastic but I don't think I actually understood the question. Now I have a stupid question but let me go read the material which will answer it maybe -- and attempt an actual answer, as someone who has also in the past posted a question too complicated to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 06:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So the question is whether to seek further comment or stop talking about this? Over and over again? I got about halfway down the page Elinruby (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You can put it that way, or shall I say that no more RMs for... how long? George Ho (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC); Pinging Elinruby. 17:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

and the problem is that everytime there is a RM there is another round? Is that it? Half of me wants to just vote for whatever makes people stop talking about this. Then I get a grip, because, ok, (wife of) bothers me too. Frankly, I really don't care what we call this woman. Except I do hate (wife of). Have we established independent notability? What's her maiden name? I suppose more discussion is what we have to choose? Or am I still not understanding this? But I think you despair too soon. Look at Ugg boots and be thankful you aren't plagued with paid editors. Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

sigh, she does seem to be independently notable. It would have solved this so nicely if we merged her into her husband's article. Has anyone considered (activist) or making her maiden name a middle name à la Hillary Rodham Clinton? Sarah Mackauley (sp?) Brown? I dunno. I have reached my current limit for taking this serioously and I am working on an attack piece on Dilma Rousseff so.... good luck with that. I may check back but I am out of constructive questions and ideas for the moment. Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support 12 months moratorium. Using the name of a person for their article is not a problem and while it is fun for some to debate things indefinitely it is very tiring and unproductive for others. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)r

• Oppose but... I am inclined to support a move to Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) as SmokeyJoe suggested. As such, I cannot support a moratorium here. However, I could support an agreement that any future RM should be nominated by 2 editors and the target title should be preferably one which has not been previously discussed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Which would exclude your preferred title, as it was previously rejected. Actually I think that the first step would have to be an unambiguous consensus - bare minimum 2/3 majority - that there is actually a problem to fix. If people can persuade me there is a problem to fix, and that WP:ITABSOLUTELYMUSTBEPARENTHESES is now policy, then we can talk about the target, but given the absence of any consensus that there is even a problem to fix, discussing the relative merits of different several-times-rejected fixes to the (non-)problem, is moot. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose moratorium. I saw some seeds of a possible consensus towards a "(wife of Gordon Brown)" disambiguator in the last move request (which I closed), so I don't see why we'd artificially cut off discussion around that possibility now. It may well be a better disambiguator than the little known middle name currently in place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That has been explicitly rejected as sexist. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Relisting comment - Although I'm involved, I requested a closure at WP:ANRFC. However, seems that waiting for an admin would be a while. Meanwhile, I am relisting this, just in case, to continue discussion for the time being. George Ho (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, and of any length. Per Guy. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - wikipedia has much bigger problems. We should stop talking about this unless someone has a new and better idea. I dislike titles with parentheses in general, and although she would probably not have an article of this length if she were married to someone else, she does have independent projects and issues and news coverage so yes, it does seem a mite sexist to put "wife of" in the title as her single distinguishing feature. The lede of this page and the disambiguation page can deal with her marital status in the body of the text or list item. Oh and let's see -- I originally was here because I was summoned by bot, although I am here today because it was re-listed. Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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, 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")[10]. 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[11]. --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[12]. 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)

• 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)
• 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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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)

• ....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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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)

Here's the rest of the list

1. 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
2. Forbes, 2011 In a wide-ranging interview with Sarah Brown, international advocate for global maternal and newborn health,
3. 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
4. BBC 2015 [www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31103953 former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's wife Sarah. ]
5. Telegraph, 2015: Sarah Brown. Wife of the former prime minister says her sons “adore the programme”
6. Guardian, 2015: Gordon Brown’s wife, Sarah
7. 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([13], [14], [15], [16]) 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 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: 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) Oppose beating the dead horse some more. If all we're going to do is re-propose previously failed ideas, then I think we need to re-institute the moratorium on RM' discussions for another year. Disrespectful of other editors' time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Wait for B2Cs comprehensive proposal, should be soon. --GRuban (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC) @Red Slash: can you please pull this RM. It does need doing and it has nearly unanimous support. And I'd rather see you do it than B2C. But can you please pull it for a moment. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 7 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. Thanks. Before anyone does anything, as Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) appears to now have near unanimous consensus, does anyone actually object to it apart from Smokey Joe? Or does anyone have anything they personally truly believe is actually better? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Many have objected, very strongly, see the archives. Disambiguating with 1963 or MacAuley are both options that cannot be summarily ignored in any reasonable discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)