Revision as of 22:00, 24 April 2014 editUSchick (talk | contribs)7,629 edits →Survey← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:57, 14 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,303,065 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{Skip to TOC}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Brown, Sarah|1= |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low}} |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Buckinghamshire|importance=low}} |
|
|politician-work-group=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=low}} |
|
|needs-photo=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}} |
|
|listas=Brown, Sarah}} |
|
|
{{WP UK Politics|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Buckinghamshire|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=b|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves|collapse=yes |
|
{{oldmoves |
|
|
|title1=Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)|title2=Sarah Jane Brown|title3=Sarah Brown (businesswoman)|title4=Sarah Brown (spouse)|title5=Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)|title6=Sarah Macaulay|title7=Sarah_Brown_(public_relations)|title8=Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) |
|
|title1=Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)|title2=Sarah Jane Brown|title3=Sarah Brown (businesswoman)|title4=Sarah Brown (spouse)|title5=Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)|title6=Sarah Macaulay|title7=Sarah Brown (public relations)|title8=Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) |
|
|list= |
|
|list= |
|
|
|
|
*RM, Sarah Macaulay → Sarah Brown, '''No consensus''', 4 June 2007, ] |
|
|
*RM, Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown, '''Not moved''', 9 November 2009, ] |
|
#RM, Sarah Macaulay → Sarah Brown, '''No consensus''', closed 4 June 2007 (]) |
|
*RM, Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown (born 1963) , '''Moved to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)''', 15 February 2010, ] |
|
#*Sarah Brown → Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife), '''moved''' 30 June 2007 (]) |
|
*RM, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (public relations), '''No consensus to move''', 15 April 2010, ] |
|
#*Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) → Sarah Brown (spouse), '''moved''' 13 January 2008 (undiscussed) |
|
*RM, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (businesswoman), '''No consensus to move''', 14 April 2013, ] |
|
#RM, Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown, '''Not moved''', closed 9 November 2009 (]) |
|
*RM, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → ?, '''move to Sarah Jane Brown''', 23 June 2013, ] |
|
#RM, Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown (born 1963) , '''Moved to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)''', closed 15 February 2010 (]) |
|
*MRV, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Jane Brown, '''close endorsed''', 9 July 2013, ] |
|
#RM, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (public relations), '''No consensus to move''', closed 15 April 2010 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (businesswoman), '''No consensus to move''', closed 14 April 2013 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → ?, '''Moved to Sarah Jane Brown''', closed 23 June 2013 (]) |
|
|
#*MRV, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Jane Brown, '''Close endorsed''', closed 9 July 2013 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown, '''Opposed''' (non-admin closure after 4 days by an IP wanting to submit an alternative request), closed 24 April 2014 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), (submitted by the IP that closed the preceding discussion) '''Closed rapidly without move''' (asserting futility of continuing the discussion), closed 25 April 2014 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown, '''No consensus to move''', closed 11 October 2014 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → TBD, '''Immediately removed''', closed 24 October 2014 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (businesswoman and wife of Gordon Brown), '''Not moved''', closed 19 May 2015 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (charity director), '''Not moved''', closed 9 December 2016 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (education campaigner), '''Withdrawn''', closed 6 February 2018 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), '''Pulled per request''', closed 7 February 2018 (]) |
|
|
#RM, Sarah Jane Brown → ?, '''No consensus to move''', closed 28 February 2018 (]) |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes | bot = MiszaBot | age = 3 | units = months}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Requested move 7== |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Move request opposed.''' Whilst some users agreed that the current title is problematic, there is a consensus that the suggested title is not the solution. As some users have recommended, a move request to an alternative title will be begun shortly. {{RMnac}} ] (]) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Sarah Brown (disambiguation)}} |
|
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Sarah Brown}} |
|
|
– The current title at ] is problematic. To see this, type 'Sarah Jane Brown' into Google. You will see that, ignoring Misplaced Pages results, the subject of this article barely appears and instead the results are dominated by a not particularly well-known sculptor. This means that the name fails ] ('Misplaced Pages ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources'), ] ('Adding middle 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') and ] ('Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject') ], who collected these quotations many months ago]. Instead, I propose moving the article to ], the common name of the subject. The article was previously hosted at 'Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)', but some users found this offensive and the article was moved to ]. At the time, 'Sarah Brown' was the name of another article: the article now placed at 'Sarah Joy Brown'. This means that the page 'Sarah Brown' is currently free as a disambiguation page. If users are concerned that readers looking for Sarah Joy Brown might simply search for Sarah Brown, then we could place a note at the top of the article. ] (]) 21:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Support as nominator.''' Moving the page to Sarah Brown removes the artificially-induced problems caused by the current article name. The only possible concern is the issue of Sarah Joy Brown, but this is easily alleviated with a hatnote. ] (]) 21:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per many other requested moves where this option (discussed as an alternative to those proposed options) has been explored many times in the past and found wanting. -- ] (]) 00:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Could you suggest here precisely why you think it wanting? Surely it must be better than using a name that nobody else uses. I will not be around after tonight for this discussion, so I apologise in advance if I do not reply. ] (]) 00:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' the current title is a concession to objections to ] as the dab, in the case of an inherited notability spouse of a politician being given a standalone page rather than a paragraph in the main politician article. But the more important issue is that and show no Primary topic, therefore we cannot have a primary topic here, period. Find another way to deal with article on Gordon Brown's wife. ] (]) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::FWIW seems that we have 30 or so articles we disambiguate by (wife of X): ], ], ], ], ], ]. ] (]) 04:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Oppose. The current title has no serious problem. Sarah Jane Brown (born 1963), charity director, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is a weakly notable figure, and there should be no surprise that excluding wikipedia generates a nearly wikipedia-notable alternative. There are too many Sarah Browns, even just in England, and so this person is not the PrimaryTopic. If there is a title problem, it is the absence of "Macaulay". --] (]) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Just because the other relatively notable "Sarah Brown" is at ] does not mean this Sarah Brown is the ] for ] - she isn't. I agree the current title is problematic for the reasons states, but this is not the solution. --]2] 02:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::True, but don't you see an IAR solution here? (see my proposal below). In the absence of consensus on any other solution, wouldn't you agree Sarah Brown is a better title than this one?--] (]) 13:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The present setup serves our readers well: Google puts this article at the top of search results for "Sarah Brown", with Sarah Joy Brown runner up. Misplaced Pages takes the searcher to a clear and straightforward disambiguation page. --] (] · ] · ]) 08:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' This would solve the problems all round. Her given name is "Sarah" not "Sarah Jane" (a common forename in its own right) and the current name is completely unrecognisable and not serving readers at all well. ] (]) 09:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Tim, but it seems the British Sarah Brown is only Primary in the UK. The American Sarah Brown was only moved to "]" because of her personal website, but and other sources don't call the American Sarah Brown "Joy" any more than anyone calls the British Sarah Brown "Jane". The real solution to this is to admit (in parenthesis) where the British Sarah Brown's notability comes from... ] (]) 01:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' No clear wp:primarytopic for "Sarah Brown". Neutral as to best disambiguation of politician's wife. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 08:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''support''' per ]. Yes, Sarah Brown is not technically the "primary" topic here, but this title is a million times better than the current one, which uses a middle name which is, literally, never used in reliable sources to refer to this person. In the last move request, I think we found one source - and a rather poor one at that - that used this middle name. The current title is really just bad for users, so the encyclopedia will be BETTER if we rename. Thus, per IAR, move.--] (]) 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Relevant google search which eliminates results cribbed from wikipedia lede: . I can't find any results here that refer to this Sarah. --] (]) 13:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If it is the case, then we have a duty to find a better disambiguator; that editors cannot agree on such among themselves is not a not a good enough reason to mislead our readers into believing that the wife is more of a wp:primarytopic than the politician or the actress, and doing so would be nothing but irresponsible laziness on our side. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't think it's as bad as all that. She is clearly more primary than the politician, likely less so than the actress (at least in terms of "hits", but since the actress is already at ], we're not really doing readers a disservice. And again, this is why IAR exists - I think given the choice between SJB and SB, SB is infinitely better for the READER, even if it means one more click to get to the "real" sarah brown they were supposedly looking for - since the reader who is looking for _this_ Sarah Brown knows they're at the right spot, and isn't thrown off by a middle name which NEVER appears in RS mentions of this lady. During the last move I proposed a number of other disambiguators, focused on her work as a charity and women's advocate, but people pooh-pooh'ed those, so we ended up with the lowest-common denominator middle-name dab which is, frankly, crap.--] (]) 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' as the importance of the subject of the article is likely to continue to decrease over time due to her husband no longer being Prime Minister. The original article title "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" seems to be the best solution, if one is needed.. ] (]) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment.''' It seems apparent that, even though the current title is believed by many to be a poor title, this request will not succeed because of ]. Some have suggested above that a different form of disambiguation should be used, in particular, specifying the she is the wife of Gordon Brown. I have gone through the Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies and I believe there is an extremely strong case for such a move. In addition, I believe that the pages previously cited opposing this name are not valid. I have prepared a draft move request that explains these matters. If this move request does not succeed (which seems to be likely), I shall post what I have prepared and, hopefully, we can reach a better title. ] (]) 13:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Are you suggesting to just revert the 23 June 2013 move, or do something else? —] (]) 18:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Essentially, yes. Some of the commentators above have suggested that such a move will be the best form of disambiguation, which is why I have researched it. The only (very slight) difference is that the previous move request was not a request from ] to ]: it was a move to something undetermined and the closer happened to believe that ] was the most commonly suggested alternative. After going through the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, I am confident that these complete support ] and not ]. What do you think?] (]) 19:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Lol, no. This article will return to the "wife of Gordon Brown" over the dead bodies of many participants here, I have no doubt. It was an awful, patriarchal throwback of a title, not to be repeated again. ] (]) 19:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Here is precisely the problem with the argument against ]: some users are opposed to it simply because of their personal opinions about social matters. This is a direct violation of ], which states that 'editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' Using an obscure name for Mrs Brown in preference to how she is usually described by reliable sources goes against ], and is something that can be resolved by changing the article name to ]. I must emphasise, though, that this discussion is about a move to ]. I do not think it is appropriate to be discussing the merits of ] here. I just thought it might be relevant to inform editors of my research. I suggest, Tarc, that we leave this for a week. ] (]) 19:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Per Tarc, it's a demeaning, patronising, insulting, 50's boy's club title. Ask a woman what she thinks of the title, ]. It's an insult. We don't gratuitously insult our subjects. --] (] · ] · ]) 16:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Welcome to the bizarro world of first-world-problems and "men-saving-the-world-from-misogyny", first up our guest Anthonyhcole. To Anthony, "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" is a "demeaning, patronising, insulting, 50's boy's club title". Now, this is how Sarah Brown (the real one), begins the preface to her book, ''Behind the black Door'', which describes the period of her life she is arguably most notable for: "In writing this book, I hope to cast a light on the role of the '''Prime Minister's spouse''' and all that it entails. As the ''wife of Gordon Brown'', I spent three years living and working at Number 10 Downing Street." So, if you put '''Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)''' in 24 point bold font on top of the webpage, it is, well, a very long list of adjectives that usually includes sexist and a few other nasty ones. But if you as the author describe yourself in this way, twice, in the first two sentences of your autobiography, or if someone introduces you in this way, or if a RS news article about you that says "Sarah Brown, wife of the prime minister" or , today xxx", then it's all fine and dandy. ONLY in the title does it transform into a piece of misogynistic drivel, at least in the minds of some here. Maybe it's the bold font? Go figure...--] (]) 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::The book was about how it is to be the wife of the Prime Minister, about 3 years of her life, and she describes it as such. Naming her biography is something else. It is defining her, to some extent. Sorry you can't see that. Or, if you can see it, sorry you can't see how demeaning it is. --] (] · ] · ]) 17:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Anthony, I do appreciate your thoughts about this. The problem, though, is that it is not down to editors to decide what is demeaning and what is not demeaning. ] clearly states that we must edit using reliable sources without bias. Reliable sources typically disambiguate her as the wife of Gordon Brown, and ignoring this because of how we feel is inconsistent with ]. There are many other aspects of Misplaced Pages that might offend some people, but they are left in place because they are representative of reliable sources. |
|
|
::::::::::With good intentions, I cannot see the benefit of discussing this further here, even though I am sure we all have much to say. This is a move request to ], not to ]. The matter can be discussed soon, but I do not think it is constructive to do so whilst the current move request is taking place. |
|
|
::::::::::Since this move request is extremely unlikely to occur, would there be any objections if another user were to close this move request before the recommended seven days? ] (]) 18:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::NPOV does ''not'' require this project to act like a misogynist asshat, nor does it dictate that the title of an article should ever be in the form of "spouse of X". If a person is ''truly'' 100% only notable in the context of whom he or she is married to, then such an article should be deleted on ] grounds. If not, then the article shall be titled after the person's name, and disambiguated accordingly. "Wife of Gordon Brown" was a terrible, ugly choice, and whoever made it at whatever time should be smacked. Righting a bad terminology choice is ''not'' a violation of NPOV in the slightest. Stop making inane assertions that are not reflected by reality. ] (]) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::There is a very simple argument against ], Tarc. As I wrote above, though, absolutely nothing will be gained by discussing it here, even though we all have much to say. We can discuss it properly later. ] (]) 18:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' While I agree that there are legitimate problems about how we title this article, I suggest that this is an inappropriate solution given that she is not by the normal standards the primary meaning of Sarah Brown. Even in Britain she had a lower profile than the spouses of some other PMs, a post she only held for 3 years. I had not heard of the American actress before, but reading her article she looks fairly important, many Americans might regard her as the primary meaning. ] (]) 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)# |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment.''' Since it is almost clear that this move request will be unsuccessful, would it be appropriate for it to be closed so as to avoid unnecessary discussion? I have prepared an alternative request that addresses the concerns here and has a good chance of being more successful. ] (]) 18:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Endorse procedural close & re-submission''' Ok by me. It's better than beating around the bush around the true controversy, the w-word as disambiguator for this article. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 19:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thank you for your reply, Victor_falk. How would the request be closed? Could it be done by any user or must a formal request be submitted? I have already prepared a thorough assessment of guidelines and policies with a move request template than can simply be copied onto this talk page. ] (]) 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There is no formal way. Any non-involved editor could do it (or even an involved one feeling ]); ask an admin or at ]. If ''you'' are feeling bold, follow the closing instructions at ] and then submit your own proposal. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 19:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
<hr /> |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Requested move 8== |
|
|
{{archive top|result=No, this is not going to happen, and if common sense isn't good enough, I'll invoke IAR. We are not going to define a woman by her husband and enshrine such a definition in the article title, and there is no sense in letting this ride for seven days. Back to the drawing board, and the nominator and others will find some suggestions in the comments below by Fut.Perf. and others. ] (]) 21:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)}} – The current article title violates ], ], ], ] and ]. The suggested article title satisfies all of these. Explanations are provided below. ] (]) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines=== |
|
|
The title ] violates ], ], ], ] and ]. ] satisfies all of these. |
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
''A good Misplaced Pages article title has the five following characteristics:'' |
|
|
*''Recognisability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognise.'' |
|
|
::Mrs Brown's middle name is rarely used in reliable sources (as shown in the below box for ]). Thus ] fails recognisability. Sarah Brown is almost always used in reliable sources and she is most often referred to as Gordon Brown's wife. Thus ] meets recognisability (also shown in ] below). |
|
|
*''Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. '' |
|
|
::The most natural title would be ], but this is not available because Mrs Brown is not the primary topic. In other articles where Mrs Brown is mentioned (click ‘What links here’ at the side of the page), she is very often described as Gordon Brown's wife. From my counting, she is linked to in 34 other articles, of which 28 immediately identify her as being Gordon Brown’s wife. This means that Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is probably the next best alternative in terms of naturalness. On the other hand, since the name Sarah Jane is essentially non-existent, ] fails naturalness. |
|
|
*''Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. '' |
|
|
::] clearly meets precision, because readers understand who she is from this title. ] fails precision because it is essentially impossible for readers to identify Mrs Brown using a name by which she is hardly known. |
|
|
*''Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.'' |
|
|
::] meets conciseness because there is no obvious way to shorten the title whilst still disambiguating her (since the page cannot be at ]). ] cannot even be assessed for conciseness since it is essentially impossible for readers to identify her in the first place. |
|
|
*''Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles. '' |
|
|
::] is consistent in that there are many similar article titles for people who are primarily known for their relationship to another person and must be disambiguated because of ] (see the below box). ] seemingly fails consistency because there are very few (if any pages) on Misplaced Pages where we have disambiguated using an obscure name used by virtually no other reliable sources. |
|
|
|2= Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes all five of WP:CRITERIA; Sarah Jane Brown passes none.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
Many other articles exist that describe a subject as a relation of another subject as part of the title. Although many of these are for historical figures (presumably because these are often known by one name, rather than a forename and surname, meaning that disambiguation is more often necessary), there are still a number that are for more recent persons. Note that there is a broad range of figures: not just wives. This list is not exhaustive. |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|2= Non-exhaustive list of articles that disambiguate using a family relationship (for point five of WP:CRITERIA).}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
''Misplaced Pages prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. '' |
|
|
:The common name for Mrs Brown is unequivocally Sarah Brown. A crude way to see this is to type 'Gordon Brown wife' into Google (using Mr Brown is simply a good way to remove any bias by typing Sarah or Sarah Jane as a search term, and it also removes lots of the hits for other Sarah Browns: please do not take this offensively). Ignoring the Misplaced Pages results, see how far you must go until Sarah Jane is found in place of Sarah. It is barely existent. Only one reference (from The Guardian) has been provided above for Sarah Jane, which was an article written on her wedding day that still used her maiden name. |
|
|
:To be more precise about these observations, I have manually checked every BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/) article since 1 January 2011 that mentions Mrs Brown by name (rather than just ‘Gordon Brown’s wife’). I am ignoring three problematic pages (such as their profile on Gordon Brown) from which it is difficult to determine usage. From my counts, she appears on 30 different pages. Of these, 28 describe her first as the wife of Gordon Brown whilst 0 use Jane. |
|
|
:Interestingly, there is a discussion in one of the archives of this article where users wrote that they did not even know Mrs Brown’s middle name and should attempt to find it. Considering this discussion took place one month before Gordon Brown left office, it is quite obvious just how obscure Jane is. |
|
|
|2= Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes WP:COMMONNAME; Sarah Jane Brown does not.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
''Adding middle 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. '' |
|
|
:Since there are other prominent Sarah Browns, disambiguation has been made here by including Jane. However, Jane is not commonly used for Mrs Brown. Therefore ] contravenes ]. |
|
|
|2= Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes WP:MIDDLES; Sarah Jane Brown does not.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
''Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. '' |
|
|
:Essentially every source describes Mrs Brown as the wife of Gordon Brown, usually as the primary form of disambiguation (rather than something like businesswoman or activist: see ] above). Using ] therefore satisfies ] , because it is fairly representing the usage of reliable sources without bias. |
|
|
:On the other hand, using ], a name that is almost non-existent when describing Mrs Brown, fails ]. This is because the name has been chosen since some editors hold the personal belief that describing Mrs Brown as the wife of Gordon Brown in the title is wrong. Ignoring the usage of reliable sources due to a personal opinion on social matters is a breach of ]. |
|
|
|2= Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes WP:NPOV; Sarah Jane Brown does not.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
Some users have previously linked to ]. There are two aspects to this depending on ''whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Misplaced Pages editors''. ] falls in the latter case. Here (under ]), it states that ''non-neutral but common names ... may be used within a descriptive title''. Even supposing that describing Mrs Brown as the wife of Gordon Brown is non-neutral (which is a violation of ] in itself), ] actually states that ] is acceptable, because common sources disambiguate her as the wife of Gordon Brown. |
|
|
|2= Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes WP:POVTITLE (which includes WP:POVNAME and WP:NDESC and is an expansion of WP:POVNAMING).}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Notes=== |
|
|
Some points have previously been raised in discussions about this page concerning ], ] and ]. These are addressed below, because they are a frequent cause of misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
Some users have written that, if Mrs Brown is notable only for being the wife of Gordon Brown, then this page should be merged with ] because of ]. The following quotation from the page, however, indicates that this is untrue: ''this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady or membership of a Royal house''. This means, in particular, that it is entirely normal to have a separate article about someone who is best known for his or her marriage. |
|
|
|2=WP:NOTINHERITED}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
Some users have previously linked to ]. This is only an essay and is not part of Misplaced Pages’s policies or guidelines. Despite this, there is nowhere within the essay that states that titles should go against reliable sources in order to correct a general perceived systematic bias within society: the essay just states users should document underrepresented cultures and topics more thoroughly. |
|
|
|2=WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse|1= |
|
|
Mrs Brown begins her memoir, ''Behind the Black Door'', with the following sentences: |
|
|
::''In writing this book, I hope to cast a light on the role of the Prime Minister's spouse and all that it entails. As the wife of Gordon Brown, I spent three years living and working at Number 10 Downing Street. '' |
|
|
It is therefore apparent that Mrs Brown is more than happy to identify herself as the wife of Gordon Brown. Some users have previously raised ], which states that ''the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment''. Considering Mrs Brown’s own description of herself, it seems far-fetched to claim that ] has the potential to cause harm to Mrs Brown. |
|
|
|2=WP:BLP and Mrs Brown’s preference}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===General remarks and notices=== |
|
|
*Editors must approach this discussion with a ]. This means considering Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies alongside the usage of reliable sources, rather than giving a personal opinion on what they might consider to be offensive. |
|
|
*As described at ] and ], the decision whether to move the page is based not on the number of votes for each choice but on the quality of the reasons made. This means that users should not give a preference without any kind of substantiation, because it is the reasoning itself that determines the outcome of the move request. |
|
|
*As well as ], there is a possibility of a move to ] amongst others. I chose the former for two reasons: the use of wife seems to be more common in reliable sources than the use of spouse, and wife is a more precise term than spouse. Since this request is potentially controversial, to maintain simplicity, it might be best only to consider ] and ] here: if there might be consensus for a different title, then a subsequent move request can be made afterwards, independent of the result of this one. |
|
|
*A panel of three administrators has been requested at ] to close this discussion after seven days. I shall update this bullet point once the panel has been confirmed. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion == |
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: |
|
*'''Strong support as nominator.''' Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies overwhelmingly support that the suggested move: it changes a title that is entirely non-conforming to one that conforms perfectly well. Whilst I understand the concerns some users have over such a title, it goes against the very principles of Misplaced Pages to allow a non-neutral point of view to take precedence over reliable sources. ] (]) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2018-07-01T03:23:05.111082 | Sarah-Brown-2 (cropped).jpg --> |
|
*'''support''' very clearly argued case based on policy. Sarah Jane Brown as the lowest-common-denominator result from the last RM is inherently anti-user because this person is never referred to in RS with this middle name. Fwiw I'd also support (Prime Minister's wife) or (wife of UK Prime Minister) as it was really her relationship to the PM that brought her significant notability not just Gordon - in this way it's more like (First lady of the US) or something similar. I don't think there would be a major concern with the fact that she is no longer the PM's wife, the point is, she was. But, (wife of Gordon Brown) is perfectly fine as well. I'm wondering how long it is before you are accused of sexism or misogyny for your well argued, policy-based case - my guess is it will happen in 3...2...1...--] (]) 20:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. ] (]) 03:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC) |
|
*'''Oppose''' or more to the point, '''no fucking way'''. Having attempted to nip this b.s. in the bud , and then the current request, I feel a refreshing sense of vindication. The recent move requests by IP editors for both this article and for ] is too strong of a coincidence to ignore; this has been a year+ -long campaign, a systemic, gender-based bias by identity-hiding IP users who are obviously too familiar with Misplaced Pages processes to be genuinely "new" users. The case here is particularly egregious, as it seeks a return to a title format one might find discussed in an episode of ]. There is absolutely no cause or reason to ever return to a patronizing, sexist terminology such as "spouse of X"; it is not in violation of ] to decline to choose such a backwards title. Start with the woman's name "Sarah Brown" and disambiguate from there as necessary. Surely the 18-35 yr old males that make up the bulk of this site's userbase can think of something, ''anything'' more creative than phrasing it as she was a possession of her husband. ] (]) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' sexist, misogynist shit. --] (] · ] · ]) 20:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::well, that didn't take long. I'm glad to hear tweedledee and tweedledum are so reliably outraged.--] (]) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Tarc and I disagree on pretty much everything, except on the point that tin-eared chauvinism doesn't belong on this project. If you can summon up the courage to talk to a woman and find one who will talk to you, ask her what she thinks of this move. --] (] · ] · ]) 21:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' This article is about a person who has a name ]. If she's only notable for being someone's wife, this article needs to be deleted and redirected to a section in her husband's article. ] (]) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::USchick, did you read the above note about ]? Mrs Brown is the wife of the former British Prime Minister ]. In these cases, there is a specific exception meaning that a deletion and redirect it neither necessary nor appropriate (open the box above to see this). ] (]) 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is an encyclopedia, not a "Who's Who" list and not a "Who's the Wife" list. If she's notable enough to have her own article, she doesn't need her husband's approval. She is a person of legal age and she has her own name. I'm not aware of any exception to that. ] (]) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Have you read the article ]? Every spouse since the middle of the nineteenth century has an individual article, and many more before that. There are also ], ], ], ] and ] amongst many other similar pages. Mrs Brown is not an exception at all (other than the fact that we require a way to disambiguate her, since she has such a popular name). Yet again, ] explains that these people are all entitled to articles, even those who are not especially notable for any other reason. ] (]) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Did you happen to notice that the articles you mention are about the position, not the person? This article is about a person who has a name. ] (]) 21:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I did notice that. If you open the articles and click through the names on the articles, you will see that many of the persons listed there are in a similar, if not identical, situations to Mrs Brown. ] (]) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Per your request, I clicked on their names, and I didn't see their article titles saying "wife of" so it's not the same situation at all. What will happen when she is no longer the "Wife"? Will the article be renamed "Widow of" or "Ex-wife of"? To name the article as anything other than her name is extremely short sighted for an encyclopedia. ] (]) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::As I wrote above, that is because they are all ]: it is only with Mrs Brown that we need to disambiguate. I was using them as good examples that we have many articles about people, both male and female, who are only notable for their marriages. ] (]) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I'm sure if we all think very hard, we can figure out a different way to disambiguate. ] (]) 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', but I would support ], as this identifies her by what she does (for which she would be independently notable) rather than by happenstance of marriage. ] ] 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: I would support this. ] (]) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' Whether we like it or not, this is what she is mainly known for. Attempts to find another disambiguator are artificial. It is not necessarily sexist as we have ]. Please avoid profanity in contributions. ] (]) 21:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''oppose''' she is either en wiki notable or not - and if she is then she should stand up under her own name, if not then add some detail in the main story, her husband and delete her story ] (]) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Mosfetfaser, did you read the above note about ] (see the above box)? It explains that people 'having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady' can have their own articles, even if they are not notable in their own right. This is why we cannot simply delete or merge this article. ] (]) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The choice of disambiguator easily comes across to the reader as more than a mere technicality (even though maybe that's what in an ideal world it ought to be). It carries implications about why a person is notable and what defines them. In terms of Misplaced Pages policy, to imply that she is notable primarily for just being somebody else's wife casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the article as a whole – as USchick rightly says, if that were really the case, it should be merged. In terms of real-life implications, suggesting to the reader that being somebody else's wife is what primarily ''defines'' her comes across as a sexist slight. This must be avoided as a matter of ]. Even if it should be the case that many members of the public do primarily know her because she is somebody's wife, that is not what makes her technically notable in the sense of justifying her article. Like BD2412, I wouldn't mind using some other disambiguator based on her professional role, such as ]. ] ] 21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Future Perfect, her article can be justified using ] as the wife of a British Prime Minister, even if she is not notable in her own right (read the box above). This is why we cannot just merge or delete the article. ] (]) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. She's notable as the wife of Gordon Brown. I think the idea that it is offensive to say this out loud is wrong-headed. It's a fact of life that non-famous people sometimes marry famous people and WP should look on such facts of life disinterestedly. I'm not even sure there's much of a gender issue here in the 21st century. Julia Gillard lives with a hairdresser, you know. ] (]) 21:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose.''' If someone is notable enough to merit an article, they don't need to be lumbered with a label implying otherwise. ] (]) 21:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: