Talk:Leelah's Law/Archive 1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by MrX in topic Absurd article rename
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Leelah's Law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Absurd article rename
StAnselm, why did you move this article to such a ridiculous name? You chose the most improbable, illogical error from a minority of sources and ran with it. Please explain your bold move.- MrX 03:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's the official name: "We ask that you name the bill in memory of Leelah as the Leelah's Alcorn Law and protect the lives of transgender youth." That is the name that the petitioners are asking the law to have. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the title is the text in large font, and you know it. We don't repeat obvious typos, and we follow the preponderance of sources. This is transparently WP:POINTy.- MrX 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Typo or not, that's the proposed name in the petition. It remains to be seen what the law (if any) is actually called, but the erroneous name should also be reported. StAnselm (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll grant you "Leelah's Law" as the common name and therefore the article title; "Leelah's Alcorn Law" should also be reported as the official name, which has also been reported in multiple sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- And I'm not quite sure it's an "obvious typo" - it's a grammatical error that presumably hundreds of thousands of people have failed to spot, and has therefore (to some extent) caught on. StAnselm (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- When someone objects to an edit, the previous edit is supposed to remain until there is consensus to change it. You are edit warring. You are giving extraordinarily undue prominence a typo, and you're justifying it with original research, while ignoring the title of the petition and dozens of sources. I'm taking this to ANI, to get wider community input.- MrX 03:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- [sic] is unnecessary (see also WP:MOSQUOTE). It's grossly WP:UNDUE to include an obvious error in this article as if it were important. I am joined in consensus by Kudpung and Flinders Petrie. See this ANI discussion for the comments from these editors. WP:BDP applies as this type of commentary and fringe content reflects poorly on the recently deceased, her family, and the transgender people for initiated the petition.- MrX 19:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- When someone objects to an edit, the previous edit is supposed to remain until there is consensus to change it. You are edit warring. You are giving extraordinarily undue prominence a typo, and you're justifying it with original research, while ignoring the title of the petition and dozens of sources. I'm taking this to ANI, to get wider community input.- MrX 03:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Typo or not, that's the proposed name in the petition. It remains to be seen what the law (if any) is actually called, but the erroneous name should also be reported. StAnselm (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the title is the text in large font, and you know it. We don't repeat obvious typos, and we follow the preponderance of sources. This is transparently WP:POINTy.- MrX 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)