Talk:Patience Wheatcroft, Baroness Wheatcroft

Only took her seat today. Just seen it happen on The Record on BBC Parliament

Only took her seat today. Just seen it happen on The Record on BBC Parliament.--95.147.54.219 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved the suggested title appears to be the commonname. Per the Royality and nobility naming guidelines, the person's name comes first, followed by their title. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Patience Wheatcroft → Patience Wheatcroft, Baroness Wheatcroft.

Oppose - Known for being editor-in chief of the Wall Street Journal Europe and not a a peer. Also no disambiguation is required for this article title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This peeress is no longer wholly or exclusively known by her pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose NCPEER is overly WP:PEACOCK. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment That is an argument against NCPEER and not relevant here. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. Additionally, a quick check of google news confirms that she is now more commonly known with her peerage title than without. Note that Lucy-marie consistently opposes all conformance with NCPEER, and has failed to gain consensus to change it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There may have been no concensus to change but there was also no consensus to retain in its current form. There are many people on both sides who are in favour and who are opposed. Also can you please provide some evidence to susbstantiate the claim made that she is better known by her ennobled title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

SUPPORT: Per Jimbo and other supporters. More common name.  JoeGazz  ▲  16:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A search in Google News (for the name "Wheatcroft", and only for recent news, as coverage after either 10 or 27 January is likely to be relevant) finds the following results:

• "Baroness Wheatcroft" - Sky News Blogs (probably trivial)
• "Lady Wheatcroft" - Lib Dem Voice, 28 January - link not working, but it's a speech from the House of Lords, in Hansard (columns 1131-1132) (copy of primary source)
• "Patience Wheatcroft, now Baroness Wheatcroft" - Telegraph, 6 February
• "Patience Wheatcroft" - The Guardian, 31 January (possibly primary source); New Statesman, 13 February; Telegraph, 5 February; Günışığı Gazetesi, 24 January (the last one looks like a letter or blog-style comment)

Almost all of the coverage is about her career as a journalist. Based on this, the article should stay at its current title, although it's probably too early to determine. If other people are finding different results, please provide links or references. Peter E. James (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that the guideline we use is not a look for what the majority of sources say, but whether or not the person is "almost exclusively" known by their common name. As she is quite frequently known by her title, none of the exceptions applies here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is she still Editor in Chief of the Wall Street Journal?

This article says that she will stand down, and was published in November. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Patience Wheatcroft, Baroness Wheatcroft. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110616183143/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43803&c=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43803&c=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120212223301/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=33499&sectioncode=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=33499&sectioncode=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)