This is an archive of past discussions about Sarah Jane Brown. 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.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So my table idea has not generated much enthusiasm. See Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table. I think the other way to go is a generic RM, but instead of offering a particular new choice, listing all reasonable candidates, and asking participants to rate their choices any way they wish, verbally, numerically, and explain their reasoning. The idea is for each participant to express what they favor, which are acceptable, which are unacceptable, and why, in whatever way that works, and which makes the most acceptable choice to the community as obvious as possible. I think the first step is to make sure we have a comprehensive list. Here's what I offer:
(DRAFT) Requested move XX February 2018 (DRAFT)
NOTE: This is just a DRAFT for discussion/suggestions, for now. Actual official RM proposal coming after we hammer out all the details here.
Sarah Jane Brown → TBD – The obvious and ideal title for this article, Sarah Brown, is ambiguous, and so we shouldn't use it because this article's subject is arguably not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. The current title disambiguating using her middle name 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 because it is not WP:NATURALDIS ("an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"). While the last RM (above, withdrawn) established there is consensus to change this title, it's unclear which alternative the community prefers. So, we've constructed the table below with all of the suggestions made previously that will hopefully allow us to make this determination.
Special multi-choice RM Instructions:
Please specify which of the choices below are acceptable and unacceptable as titles of this article, and why.
Please also specify priorities among the acceptable in a manner that will aid the closer in best identifying the community's preferred choice. One way to do this is to assign a 0-10 point value, optionally with decimals for more granularity (e.g., 8.5) to each one. But most importantly remember to explain your reasoning.
Base on previous RMs, it's likely that "Sarah Jane Brown" and "Sarah Brown (wife of ...)" are likely to each be be strongly opposed by many, so please be clear about your preferences other than these.
Widely described as an advocate including in this Daily Beast bio. ("Sarah Brown is a passionate advocate for global health and education issues around the world.")
Simple use of maiden name for disambiguation. Homage to original title Sarah Macaulay
Even when Sarah Macaulay article was created in 2007 she was already married and referred to as "Sarah Brown" in reliable sources; not notable prior to marriage to GB.
Anything other possibilities to add to this list? I'll give it a day or two, and then create an RM proposal accordingly, unless someone has a better idea. --В²C☎17:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd support one of three things (well, honestly, two things):
Easy: An RM discussion to use the "(born 1963)" disambiguator, because it has been my observation in the last few discussions that while few people view this as their first choice, a large number view it as an acceptable second choice, and very few actively hate it. It's the only single-choice discussion I see having any realistic chance of success. Not a high likelihood of success, but realistic.
Hard: A multi-option RM discussion needs to be carefully thought out and carefully, actively managed by someone uninvolved or it is going to degenerate. This is not something we're really set up to do. But just starting a free-wheeling multi-option discussion soon, because the previous moratorium has expired, will do more harm than good. While, in a functional system, that would be a good way to settle things once and for all, this is a dysfunctional system. With a lot of options, a majority of people are not going to get their first choice. And it has been my observation time and time again that what Wikipedians do when they realize they aren't going to get their first choice is they sabotage the discussion. I believe that this will blow up in well-meaning faces unless you find an experienced, neutral, well-respected mediator to manage the discussion.
Propose simple headcount - Floquenbeam, you seem to have an opinion on the demographics of this discussion, but I think you are are making it more complicated than it is. As far as I can see (and I can't recall making more than flyby comment in the previous ones) there's a dividing line here of two camps. Camp 1, those who don't see a problem with what is used in the British press (wife of Gordon Brown) vs. Camp 2, those who are morally offended by (wife of Gordon Brown) which then creates the problem of finding some alternative (born 1963). Before we all waste our time. Can we not just do a headcount of how many there are in Camp 2? Because if it's only 3 or 4 editors we can just go with (wife of Gordon Brown) and no further time wasting is required. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but as we said above the anti-wife lobby seems to have vanished. We've only got 1 editor above objecting to wife. Some of those editors I notice have left Wikipedia. At least 1 has been blocked. If they aren't here, why can't we do a headcount? I count only 1. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, I can relate to your cynicism, but I don't share it. One reason is because few here have a strong first choice. Many seem to feel much more strongly about what this title should not be. Those two camps are: 1) it should not be Sarah Jane Brown and 2) it should not be "wife of". Those in the first camp do seem to tend to favor "wife of", but I think it's fair to say most would far prefer any of the other reasonable options as well, over SJB. So I think there is an optimal choice, and we should be able to find a mechanism to find it. I'll start a subsection here to begin drafting how we should word the proposal. --В²C☎18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I've drafted a proposal above and added a "Code" column to the table to make the various choices easier to reference. Any comments/suggestions about the wording and special instructions? Clear enough? Codes okay? Anything else? --В²C☎19:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. I'd rather have a thorough list than have people start saying "Oh I wish X was in the list" in the middle of the discussion.--В²C☎22:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
LOL! PROs and CONs are not supposed to be neutral, by definition. But the balancing of the PROs and CONs should be neutral - that is we should not exclude anything significant from either side for any of the choices. Remember we finally found consensus at Talk:Yogurt by presenting a pro/con table there... Talk:Yogurt/Archive_6#Arguments_regarding_article_title --В²C☎01:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It's inspired by the pro/con section for each proposition in the voter's pamphlet you get before each election. --В²C☎01:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I know yogurt well and you know I disagree with your reading of what happened. The Pros and Cons are your pros and cons your POV. Keep them attached to your signature. Voter pamphlets are a very bad model for preparing a consensus decision making process. Please stop embedding your POV in the design. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the only one contributing to the pros and cons and we've all tried to present them in an as objective manner as possible. You are welcome and encourage to participate as well. If anything is not factual there, please correct it. --В²C☎17:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The pros and cons very quickly has mixed objective facts with an individuals opions. The listing of unsigned individuals’ opinions alongside the facts is intellectually dishonest, definitely unscholarly. Doing this will derail the entire effort, and provide grounds to reject any attempt of a closer to declare a consensus. Create a table by all means, but keep it clear as to whose opinions it contains. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The previous discussions have been dominated by more by rejection of some options than by positive enthusiasm for alternatives
When there are many options and diverse views, with some highly contentious options in the mix, a stable consensus can be achieved only when editors accept that the outcome will be not be the first choice of an absolute majority, and probably not even the first choice of a plurality. So the path to a stable consensus has to explicitly focus everyone's mind on finding an outcome which few ppl detest, and which as many ppl as possible can live with as "good enough".
@Born2cycle and BrownHairedGirl: point taken about this being driven by dislike of particular alternatives rather than preference for an alternative; I know there are three choices I despise, and 11 that I don't really care about. Perhaps you're right that this will make things go smoother; it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about something. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
What's wrong with just a simple RM to see if there's consensus for naming the article "wife of Gordon Brown"? I have been advocating that for some time, and it looked like there might again be a consensus for it in the aborted discussion above. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Look at the RM history at the top of this talk page. Any time that is proposed editors opposed to "wife of" show up in squadrons - otherwise they stay away and it appears that it might be acceptable. I personally don't agree with overriding usage in RS with our own politically correct inclinations, but there are plenty of members of the WP community who clearly feel otherwise. --В²C☎16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As a politically correct simpleton, all I really care about is that the "wife of..." or "spouse of..." choices aren't used. I find it annoying when people propose things that have clearly failed multiple times before, in the hope that this time they can do it under the radar and create facts on the ground. The thought of 4 RM discussions in one month is also the reason that 1 year moratotiums gain consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm concerned that we have only one bullet left, so to speak, before consensus builds to impose another moratorium again. The way I'm constructing this, if "wife of" truly has more support than the current title, that should be obvious from the discussion that results. --В²C☎17:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Do not do this pros and cons. It is poisoning the well. Save that for your own !vote space. Let others repeat the pros and cons, and when they do the case is so much stronger and clearer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC). Some F.C. your cons statements are wrong anyway. Sarah Macaulay was notable before associating with G. Brown. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the pro/con aspect is useful. In most cases, we know what people are likely to say, and it would be a waste of effort and increase of confusion if we don't provide a summary of the basic known issues up front. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Useful, yes, but easily misused or abused. “we know what people are likely to say”. Seriously? You presume to know others’ future thoughts, and think it OK to write for them? Almost straight away, the so called summaries of known issues have begun poisoning the well. Conventions on talk pages including the signing of opinions. If you want to sign off on B2C’s summaries, fine, but I do not, and I strongly object to them being presented as universally agreed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not poisoning the well unless the information is misleading or negative in an irrelevant way. If that's the case for any of it, fix it, but that's no argument against having a pro/con summary at all. --В²C☎21:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It is poisoning the well if you present selected information in a biased way. You are doing that. Some statements are irrelevant, others objectionable. Objectively, it is definitely the case that you are mixing simple facts with opinions, all unsigned. You’ll find that the voter pamphlets are signed. Just don’t do it. Instead, present your own views in your own !voting section, and if you’re persuasive, others will !vote “per B2C”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that the current title should be first. While in general we presume the current title is likely to have consensus support, that has never been established for this particular title. To the contrary, the community has repeatedly shown that consensus is opposed to it, so in this case there should be no presumption of consensus support for the current title. --В²C☎18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The current title has to be firs because it is the status quo, WP:TITLECHANGES favours the status quo, and any new title has to have a clear advantage over the status quo. Contrary to your attempted slipped-in dubious assertion in your withdrawal statement in your previous RM, there has been no demonstrated consensus that the current is not ok and a change is required. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
In the last RM, the one I withdrew, support for change from the status quo was clearly practically unanimous - way beyond consensus as normally determined on WP. In any case, I don't think it matters and will leave it first for you. --В²C☎21:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
What's with the sea of red?
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago691 comments75 people in discussion
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: no consensus to move. Any time a move is proposed, it is the onus of the proposer and the support to demonstrate why a page should be moved to a new location. There is nothing wrong with throwing a dozen options at a wall and seeing what sticks, but it means that the arguments made for each individual option must be that much stronger (i.e. there is less opportunity to simply "agree with nom"). The support percentage for the current title was by far the highest (nearly 2:1 with almost 40 separate opinions), and while this is not a "vote counting" exercise such a wide margin cannot be entirely discounted. For all options, much of the support was along the lines of "this option is better than the current title" (or in support of the current title), which doesn't do much in the way of policy-based reasoning for moving a page. Thus, it comes down to a question of policies and guidelines. WP:NCDAB states that natural disambiguation is preferred, and WP:NCPDAB says that "(born XXXX)" disambiguators are discouraged but may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and tag (emphasis added). Thus the addition of a slightly-less-known middle name is slightly more preferable (from a guideline perspective) over (born 1963) or (née Macaulay), but not enough to make this a clear-cut "not moved".
Given the above, there is no strong consensus to move the page anywhere (and one could argue a slight consensus to keep the title unchanged). In addition - due to the continuing failure of RMs to produce a successful change on this title - an indefinite moratorium on further move requests will be implemented, which can be lifted no sooner than 2 years from now if there is consensus for a new RM at that time.
Sarah Jane Brown → ? – The obvious and ideal title for this article, Sarah Brown, is ambiguous, and so we shouldn't use it because this article's subject is arguably not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. The current title disambiguating using her middle name 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 because it is not WP:NATURALDIS ("an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"). While the last RM (above, withdrawn) established there is consensus to change this title, it's unclear which alternative the community prefers. So, we've constructed the table below with all of the suggestions made previously that will hopefully allow us to make this determination.
Special multi-choice RM Instructions:
Please specify which of the choices below are acceptable and unacceptable as titles of this article, and why.
Please also specify priorities among the acceptable in a manner that will aid the closer in best identifying the community's preferred choice. One way to do this is to assign a 0-10 point value, optionally with decimals for more granularity (e.g., 8.5) to each one. But most importantly remember to explain your reasoning.
Base on previous RMs, it's likely that "Sarah Jane Brown" and "Sarah Brown (wife of ...)" are likely to each be be strongly opposed by many, so please be clear about your preferences other than these. В²C☎ 21:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.bd2412T19:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
You can share your thoughts in one traditional !vote comment in the #Survey section, or the "extended discussion" area at the bottom on the Survey section that has a separate sub-section for each choice. --В²C☎17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Title choices
This summary is the personal view of a single user and may not reflect a neutral point of view
Jane is her middle name according to Companies House and other public records. Already the current title. Used by some external sites: [3][4][5][6]. Also see "Sarah Jane Macauley" before her marriage: [7].
Wrongly implies she uses and is known by this name; not commonly (ever?) used outside WP.
Widely described as an advocate including in this Daily Beast bio. ("Sarah Brown is a passionate advocate for global health and education issues around the world.")
Simple use of maiden name for disambiguation. Original title was Sarah Macaulay.
Even when Sarah Macaulay article was created in 2007 she was already married and referred to as "Sarah Brown" in reliable sources; not known prior to marriage to GB; seen by some as patriarchal.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Close and ban User:Born2cycle from initiating another RM on this page. His attempts to constrain others into using his style of thinking are disruptive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
What? I announced I would do this when I withdrew the last one. Others have collaborated in preparing this. I'm confused. --В²C☎22:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion, again. I didn't see anyone else agreeing with you, so I accommodated your comments as well as I could. I agree to leave SB first, I added (Macaulay), and review the comments for objectivity. Frankly, I don't understand what your issues are. We'll see how this goes. --В²C☎22:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Your codes are unhelpful. Your Pros are OK, mostly good (I object to "homage"). Some confusing of "notable" for "known for". Your Cons detract from a rationale, factual presentation of summary information. "Wrongly implies"? You assert something I dispute. "Not notable for" is an off-the-track criticism. I would stript the Code and Cons columns. The section title should be changed from "Title choices" to "B2C's suggested Title choices". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you're taking this too seriously and not giving your editor-colleagues sufficient credit? I don't think they'll be influenced the way you seem to think they will be. So far it seems to be going pretty well. --В²C☎ 03:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Alright. I'm getting over it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As nom... NOTE: It helps to have the table open in a separate window while you're doing this... I still think wife is the best choice because that's how sources refer to her almost unanimously. I think we get close to that perhaps without as much offensiveness with spousePM, so that's my second choice, and spouseGB my third. Of the parenthetic disambiguations I think ad (Sarah Brown (advocate)) is best. It's WP:CONCISE and how she's widely described in sources. I think it's better than camp because the meaning of "campaigner" can be misinterpreted, so ad is my 4th choice. Of the remaining parenthetic disambiguations, all of which are preferred to SJB, which is the only candidate I think is unacceptable, mac is probably best for it's simplicity and accuracy, my 5th choice. If I have to pick any beyond that, I'd go with head before the others, as this is most descriptive of what she is known for, besides being the spouse of the PM. The others are all okay, and much better than SJB. --В²C☎ 22:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Striking original !vote as I've participated in the "extended discussion" method below. --В²C☎17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose all "wife of..." and "spouse of..." formulations. Not because they are "offensive", as the table says (I suppose this is what happens when someone who supports an option writes the "con" section), but because it strikes me as a belittling way to disambiguate a living person. Also because this exact suggestion has been rejected several times previously, and previous opinions should not be ignored just because those editors may not be active at the moment. No opinion on any of the other options, because since they are not belittling a living person, and because no matter what we do it will be imperfect, I don't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose Sarah Brown (born 1963), not because it's actually my favorite - I promise I don't care enough to have one - but because, as I said in a thread above yesterday, it seems to me that I've seen lots of people, over time, say it's not their first choice but that they could live with it. I doubt there's a similar widespread feeling about any of the other disambiguators. If choosing this would mean that no one would be outraged enough to feel compelled to start RM discussion #23 (or whatever we're up to) as soon as this one closes, i say let's do it and end this Sisyphean question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a better solution: since the article title is 100% accurate and neutral, you could accept theat there is nothing that has to be "resolved". Literally the only thing that needs resolving is the fact that you and a tiny handful of others flatly refuse to accept the current title. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
My current preference would be wife or spousePM, since I think those are the most informative to clearly tell the reader who the article is about, and they are not attempting to "socially reengineer reality". She is most well-known for being Gordon Brown's wife, and that is simply the fact of the situation, and I don't see that as a big problem. Many independent reliable sources have also frequently identified her that way, without any apparent political or derogatory tilt when they do so (AFAIK). I don't like the ambiguity that would result from "SB". I don't like the occupation-based ones since they seem to be trying to just manufacture some substitute role identifier that is not the obvious role for which she is more well known. I don't mind b1963, nee, and SJB since they seem like relatively straightforward person identifiers. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
How about Sarah Brown (UK)? Only one other Sarah Brown is British, and this one is primary topic between those two. The politician can be taken care of with a {{distinguish}} hatnote. Station1 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The idea of a "primary topic between these two" is undesirable as incomplete disambiguation. Please see WP:INCOMPDAB (and perhaps WP:PDAB). Using a country name as a disambiguator for a person also seems a bit odd to me – I don't remember seeing it before (although Wikipedia has so many articles that it probably does exist somewhere). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think merely being from the UK is sufficient reason to use that as a disambiguator, so it's not really ambiguous. As the spouse of the former PM, this Sarah Brown represents the UK in a remarkable way. That's why it makes sense for her to use the Twitter handle SarahBrownUK - it wouldn't make sense for any other Sarah Brown to do so. Same with UK as a disambiguator; it only makes sense for this one. It's not ambiguous. She's not the primary topic for this, she's the only topic for it. --В²C☎18:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
First choice is wife, as stated above. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, however much people think it's offensive or belittling to call her that. But since that option seems to have been bludgeoned off the table, I suppose b1963 would be the best compromise we can come up with, so support b1963 as second choice. At least nobody would be likely to think it *wasn't* referring to Gordon's wife, which some of the other obscure titles considered might do. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "that option seems to have been bludgeoned off the table". 3 editors do not a bludgeon make. Jcc Floquenbeam and SmokeyJoe have declared themselves to be resolutely opposed to wife. But we don't normally in RMs have to take notice of anything less than 50% of editors, particularly in this case when the overwhelming editors all seem quite comfortable with Radio Times, Telegraph, BBC, use of "wife". Even The Guardian uses "wife". In business, in academia, in any other collegiate field when 3 people have a view against the group the usual process is to go ahead. If it was 7 or 8 editors that would be a different issue, but it appears to be 3. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "resolutely opposed to wife" are the right words. I have resolved that "wife of" is undesirable, slightly worse that the current title. It alludes to derived notability, which is not true, there are enough quality sources preceding her association with Gordon that establish notability. Shakespeare's and Caesar's wives do benefit from derived notability, tolerated because they are historical. I do however acknowledge that other editors, in past RM, were resolutely opposed, and I don't disagree with them. I think they should be advised that the previously rejected title is being revisited. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Well that's fiction. But be that as it may, I do not think we should go stirring up past objectors. Time moves on. Currently we have only 3 editors objecting to description as per UK news sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Fiction? I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean bland rudeness? This horse may not be dead, but it has been flogged embarrassingly. The option was formally rejected with wider participation than there has been this time. If this is seriously a proposal to overturn the previous consensus decision, previous participants must be advised. Only 3? Are you counting? It is not about counting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I think "fiction" may be referring to notable fictional characters such as wives in Shakespearean plays (e.g., Lady MacBeth), not saying that some of the remarks here are fiction. Not sure though. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no debate in the history of Wikipedia where the voices of people in past discussions from years ago are assumed to still hold sway. If that were the case we'd never make any progress at all. The repeated shutting down of attempts to gain consensus for "wife of Gordon Brown", (including the premature closing the above discussion on exactly that), citing "the archives" as a rationale, is a little frustrating to me, to be honest. — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Past discussions do hold sway. AfD discussions auto-link to previous AfD discussions on the same page. DRV repeat discussions are expected to explicitly address the previous, and there has to be a good reason to repeat the same discussion. Here, the relevant discussion was Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_2#Requested_move_6_(June_2013), in which User:SlimVirgin successfully made the case, according to closer User:Tariqabjotu that Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is probably close to the name that our policies would recommend (the most common name + a description as to what the person is known for), but there is obvious consensus that this name is just bad. The MRV, closed by User:Cuchullain was very strong in upholding that point. Although, I do read a vocal minority in opposition. To avoid the perception of gamesmanship, all past participants, of RM#6 in particular, and probably its MRV because a lot of on point comment was made there, should be invited to this presumably hopefully final RM. At Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_9#Requested_move_2_December_2016, your close included a dubious third sentence, confusing "vocal minority" with "groundswell". I will not be ripping my hair out if this goes to "wife of Gordon Brown", but the archives archive clear divergent strong opinions, and I oppose it being slipped in, reversing a past explicitly asserted consensus, without notifications. It is a matter of proper procedure, not of being bound by a past decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: would you please rewrite or strike the part of your post that mentions me? The way you've worded it sounds as though I argued that "wife of" was what our policies recommend, but that others determined this was bad. Both clauses are misleading. (You could add "that" before "there is obvious consensus", i.e. "but that there is", which would help, or rewrite in some other way.) SarahSV(talk)18:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually the title is not controversial in the least tiny bit except to a tiny handful of people apparently obsessed with parenthetical disambiguation. the RM is controversial only because you and a few others absolutely refuse to accept "no" as an outcome. And your position is fatally undermined by the fact that only yesterday you were insisting IN CAPITALS that Sarah Jane Brown is "NOT HER NAME", which is a frankly bizarre claim that is trivially refuted. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
My error notwithstanding (but at least it finally unearthed SOME primary source using her middle name after marriage to GB, though it's far from establishing COMMONNAME), this is the most controversial title I know of. Ten years even beats the 8-year-old long Yoghurt/Yogurt status quo embargo there (which has been stable for over six years, ever since it was finally moved to Yogurt, by the way). This title too could be and would be stabilized if the small group that bizarrely thinks we should implement some kind of novel PC policy about "wife of", one not recognized by any publications any where, all of which commonly refer to this subject as "wife of GB", would give it a rest. --В²C☎18:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, how is the claim that this is not her name trivially refuted? As far as I'm aware there isn't a single reliable source calling her "Sarah Jane Brown", which was a rather surprising point that B2C raised here in the debate. JzG do you have a source with which to do your trivial refutation? — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It only "finally turned up" a source because nobody has previously been foolish enough to even suggest the contrary, let alone to insist it as vociferously as you did. And trivially refuted because if somebody is a company director, Companies House is the first and most obvious place to check their full legal name: all records are online and freely searchable. Charity Commission records don't always list the full name, though it's not clear who else "S J Brown" might be in the reports of Theirworld given that no other officers have that surname. Most sites, of course, do not need to use her full name, any more than they need to call her Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), because it is almost always entirely obvious in context and so no disambiguation is required. It's only when you get to a site like Wikipedia that a globally unique name is needed. You were silly. You should laugh and walk back, not pretend that you were somehow demanding a thing that had been long withheld Guy (Help!) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I did think the suggestion that she might have randomly dropped her middle name when she got married was a bit of a stretch, but it's good to have that evidence anyway. For me, this one is still inferior to the b1963 one though, for the simple reason that titling her "Sarah Jane Brown" carries the sugestion that she is commonly known that way. Maybe that's just because I know a bit too much about Wikipedia's naming conventions... but when I first came across this article a couple of years ago, I genuinely wondered for a few moments who the subject was, before realising it was that Sarah Brown. The one who, in my mind at least, is best known for being the wife of the former PM. But there you go. — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought the suggestion of dropping her middle name on marriage was a prime example of motivated reasoning. No, titling the article Sarah Jane Brown does not imply that she is "commonly known that way", nobody uses John H. Smith (mathematician) in everyday discourse, after all. It is a unique and unambiguous title whch has the great advantage of also being actually her name rather than some parenthetical qualifier inserted for our convenience. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
But that's the difference between a parenthetical disambiguator and a natural one. You may not like it, but it's been our policy on Wikipedia to use parentheticals forever. "Mathematician" is an adjective which qualifies the rest of the title, not part of the title itself, that's why it appears in the parentheses. It is not expected to be read as part of the title. Whereas "Sarah Jane Brown" sounds like an integrated title, people will read the whole thing and try to work out who they know with that name. I'm speaking from experience because I had exactly that reaction when I first came to this article. "Who is Sarah Jane Brown? I don't recall anyone with that name". Whereas if I saw Sarah Brown (born 1963), I would think "Who is Sarah Brown" and it would become obvious much more quickly who that was talking about, even if I didn't know exactly which year she was born. Your example of John H. Smith (mathematician) is actually a telling one, because we *could* instead call him John Howard Smith, that's an unambiguous name. But we don't, because nobody except his mother calls him John Howard Smith, and people wouldn't recognise who he was from that title. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
First choice Sarah Brown (née Macaulay), second choice b1963, third choice SB, oppose SJB because readers would not recognise it when searching for "Sarah Brown". Sources arguably reference her with her maiden name more than with her year of birth. Using Macualay as a disambiguator is anything but patriarchal, not that it matters anyway. feminist (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Neutral – not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but since nearly all other options bend the rules one way or another, this way of bending them seems, to me at least, more or less acceptable, especially as this one is over-all the shortest (most concise although least precise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Support - as the easiest option, since she is probably the most recognisable person with this name, and because we can't decide how to identify her. This is Paul (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Decreeing her the primary topic is not as egregious as most of the other options. It's not like any one of the other Sarah Browns is that much more notable. — AjaxSmack04:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Support as alternative to "Sarah Jane Brown". I was a bit confused at first by the arguments that SJB is not the primary topic, since no other topic appears to be primary at Sarah Brown (disambiguation). However, it looks like Sarah Joy Brown gets at least as many monthly page views. What that means in terms of the actual primary topic I don't know, but if it would finally put this debate to rest, then it's worth moving this page to "Sarah Brown" and being done with it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Support — I think this is a great option. She's the only Sarah Brown who is known as an advocate, and she is widely known as an advocate, so I don't see any lack of precision problem here. And it's concise and simple. --В²C☎17:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose for same reason as Timrollpickering. In Scotland (where she lives) "advocate" has the specific meaning of a lawyer, equivalent to a barrister elsewhere, which she is not. Opera hat (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Strongly oppose – per WP:NCPDAB, "born <year>" cannot be used without another qualifier (when that other qualifier applies to two people with the same name). This one really doesn't fly imho, too much weight on the birth date of a living person (as if wanting to stress their age) is, as far as I'm concerned, not the way we should go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The remark above about "too much weight on the birth date of a living person (as if wanting to stress their age)" leads me to think nee may be a better choice than this one, although I don't oppose this one. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I already objected to your subsection structure, and now you're giving me a hard time for not fitting my comments into it rigidly enough? I reserve the right to choose "the way I contributed to the discussion", and I think this is a very good place to point out that I thought one of your comments was insightful. Remember when you said "I'll respect your approach"? I'm trying to support what you said here. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose — While it is a distinguishing characteristic, her birth year is not something that is widely known about her. Not a good choice for disambiguation at all. --В²C☎17:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Support - better than the current version. WP:NCPDAB also says "For historical figures 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 or death." Historical is debatable, but it's clear there is no dominant qualifier. --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Support - accurate, doesn't use a confusing term, doesn't imply a name that isn't in use, doesn't have people screaming fury if it's used. Timrollpickering18:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Support yep, I outlined my reasoning above but to state it again, I think that this is a good neutral descriptor where there isn't one single descriptor- none of the below persuade me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Good, although not best. This is a standard real world method for disambiguating biographies. Weakness is that the year means little to most, although it will help a little in choosing from a list. Better than the current because few know her middle name, but most have some idea of her age. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose - this type of disambiguation device is only used as a last resort, and there is one much better parenthetical we could use instead. Red Slash13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Not my first choice, but out of those that have a chance of passing, it seems like the best choice. Also matches Barbara Bush (born 1981), which is another person best known by their family association to a world leader. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. It is neutral disambiguation of last resort that is indisputably true. There's no expectation that any disambig will entirely tell you about the topic; that's what the disambig page is for. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment/question - While her birth year is publicly known, and it's noted in the article either way, given the sensitivity to age many people understandably have, is it wise and respectful to broadcast it in the very title of her article like this? --В²C☎19:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't pretend to care about being respectful. It is hypocritical to raise an issue you don't care about in order to get your way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me? I care very deeply about respecting all BLP subjects. My positions on the various choices here are consistent with that. I think it's disrespectful to use a name that is not her name, or to broadcast her birth year like this. I don't think it's disrespectful to refer to her as what she is and what she is most known for: being the wife of GB. --В²C☎20:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I !voted my support for "Sarah Brown (nee Macaully)" in its section, and won't otherwise vote, but I do want to specifically vote against this one. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to be weirdly emphasizing her birth year, when that is never or extremely rarely done for any other woman or man, and it seems somewhat personally intrusive, if not like a personal attack. And like AdA&D just stated it is unlikely readers know the birthyear so it is not helpful descriptively. And others have pointed out she did operate professionally with the Macauly or whatever name, and that makes for a perfectly neutral option. In summary, NO on using birth year. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
As a quick comment, disambiguation by year of birth / birth & death year / time that flourished is not "never or extremely rare" in Wikipedia, at least for cases where disambiguation is necessary. I wouldn't say it's common, of course, but it happens. In fact, I see two move discussions at WP:RM right now involving this form of disambiguation. It is perhaps the most common for multiple people who all participate in the same sports league, so you have Joe Bloggs (baseball player born 1964) and Joe Bloggs (baseball player born 1987). (I suppose you would dislike the other cases as well.) SnowFire (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but it uniquely identifies her in a way that is neither confusing nor controversial. I think it's time we just settled on this and move on. It wasn't my first choice, probably wasn't a lot of people's first choice, but if we're rejecting "wife" or "spouse" options then this really is the only suitable one left. And it does a good job of disambiguating, and a reaonable job of recognizability - few will know her true year of birth, but will know it's around that ballpark, which is often the purpose of a date of birth identifier. The same goes for Barbara Bush (born 1981) - we know the wife of Bush 41 was born way earlier than that, so that just leaves the daughter of Bush 43, who was plausibly born in 1981. — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay using birthdate is not rare in Wikipedia, at least for male sportspeople, and come to think of it I have seen date ranges used for more historical/dead persons. But in general I believe it is pretty factually true that women, more than men, have preferred not to have their ages/birthdates plastered all over the place, and it is my sense it would be relatively unusual for women of her "type" (approximate age? profession? association with a head of state). There are certainly lots of actresses/celebrities who in the past fudged their ages or refused to say. Wikipedia has been destroying anyone's ability to control info on their age, which might be a good thing, but it still seems a bit rude to me to be sticking it to this Sarah Brown to make it so salient; she would be the only one on the Sarah Brown disambiguation page being disambiguated by birthdate, it has just been pointed out. And, using her maiden name Macaully one way or another provides unique identification and does not go there. I don't mean to be gallant or whatever, she doesn't need "protection", but using the birthdate still seems to me to carry some spin of being deliberately and unnecessarily rude, or having the appearance of that, and I would prefer to avoid the appearance. --Doncram (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The difference being that a "born" + year qualifier can (at least according to the applicable guidance) only be used for two persons with exactly the same primary qualifier ("footballer" in the examples given), and in combination with such qualifier appearing in both article titles.
Whether Barbara Bush (born 1981) is a justifiable exception I don't know, but it is at least an interesting example – let's see whom one is disambiguating from:
Among the persons whom the charity director needs to disambiguate from is Sarah Brown (politician): the charity director is also a politician (appears in Category:Labour Party (UK) politicians), so one might be tempted to propose Sarah Brown (politician, born 1963), which would be conforming to the WP:NCPDAB guidance. But here's the catch: the other politician (who by the way is also an activist, campaigner and whatnot that overlaps with Gordon Brown's wife – apart from not being a charity director) seems to have a birth date that is very difficult to trace: I couldn't find it anywhere. She could be somewhat younger, she could have been born in 1963 for all I know. Even if that is not the case, this would make a very difficult (i.e. almost unrecognisable) differentiation between the two Sarah Brown politicians: if the other Sarah Brown prefers not to divulge their birth date (which might seem reasonable to assume while not divulging their deadname birth name either), we should definitely not disambiguate these two persons by birth date.
Oppose. Clumsy fix to a non-problem. Nobody calls her Sarah Jane Brown? Well, guess what: Nobody calls her Sarah Brown (born 1963) either. And as an Englishman I can tell you that it is considered rude to emphasise a woman's age. Very poor form indeed. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You don't see any irony in "vehemently" opposing sexism everywhere else on the page, but opposing this title because it's "rude to emphasise a woman's age"? --GRuban (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course I do. Still true: in the UK this is seen as rude by a significant number. And, to be fair, Cary Grant was always notoriously cagey about his age. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons described above (per Francis Schonken, etc.); not a preferable substitute for using the individual's name. ╠╣uw[talk]12:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Support as second third choice (after "Sarah Jane Brown" and "Sarah Brown"). Of the parenthetical options, this one is the most concise and straightforward, requiring the fewest assumptions about the person and their roles and relationships. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)(edited 12:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC))
Support as second choice per Sangdeboeuf above. I don't see the problem with the current title but if we have to change it, this is the best proposal to do so without emphasizing any certain role and is in line with WP:NCPDAB's last paragraph ("historical" does not necessary mean "dead" and the guideline does not say "only for historical figures" anyway). As feminist points out, there is precedent for such naming and if Barbara Bush Jr. can be identified by her birth year, why can't Sarah Brown? I'm also not convinced by Francis Schonken's argument above. There is no reason to assume that some other Barbara Bush who was born in 1981 becomes notable (or is notable but has not yet an article). That itself does not invalidate the current article naming for the president's daughter (whose article, btw, would have to be called Barbara Bush (daughter of George W. Bush) by the logic of some people here). If and when another Sarah Brown appears who was born in 1963, we can reconsider such a name. Otherwise, all "born XXX" disambigs would be problematic because you can never say for certain that another person with the same year and birth date does not exist and should have an article. Anyway, I think we should leave the article where it is. Regards SoWhy17:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Disambiguating based on year of birth is perfectly fine if you can't find a different way. And it looks like we're having great difficulty doing so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Support as 2nd choice after Sarah Jane Brown. Best of the parentheticals, well supported by precedent and guidelines, and with a redirect from SJB, it's no big deal. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose — Not nearly as good as advocate. I think "campaigner" is too easy to misinterpret to mean "one who campaigns in elections". --В²C☎17:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – better than the unqualified "campaigner", but still worse than the current middle name disambiguator, for the vagueness of campaigner (makes it sound like someone who became famous for something they do in their hobby time). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak support — better than unqualified "campaigner" because it's not subject to misinterpretation. but I think "advocate" conveys similar meaning more concisely. --В²C☎17:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Very weak support. Is known for this, but not most known for this so might confuse some. Better than the current, worse than standard disambiguation options of birth year and and previous (notable) name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Support as good enough (1st choice). "Not what she's primarily known for" is completely bogus; anyone who's overwhelmingly known as a health and education campaigner for health and education advocacy organisations is obviously associated with leadership of said organisations in one capacity or another. No one cares, at the title-and-lead level, what the exact job title is (or whether it's a paid job or a volunteer board-membership). Using this or the next option below gets around the two-topic and WP:CONCISE problem of "health and education". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose director implies she's involved in the day to day management which I can't see evidence of- president, sure, or campaigner, but not someone directly running it. I'm happy to be corrected here though. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
One of the "Theirworld Projects Limited directors" (emphasis added)
President of Theirworld (with other people qualified as directors and honorary president)
As a member of what is called "Advisory board, trustees and directors", and being designated "director" in at least one instance on that page, the director qualification seems correct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"implies she's involved in the day to day management" isn't true. "Director" can imply that, in an organization with job titles like "Director of Marketing", "Director of Sales", etc. But more often it means "member of the Board of Director", which is the diametric opposite of involved in day-to-day management. Most boards only meet 1–4 times per year. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Support - It's how she's been described at the disambiguation page for almost five years now, and it strikes me as accurate enough to be used as the disambiguator. It also avoids the "wife of ..." concerns. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Support as good enough (2nd choice). "Not what she's primarily known for" is completely bogus; anyone who's overwhelmingly known as a health and education campaigner for health and education advocacy organisations is obviously associated with leadership of said organisations in one capacity or another. No one cares, at the title-and-lead level, what the exact job title is (or whether it's a paid job or a volunteer board-membership). Using this or the option immediately above gets around the two-topic and WP:CONCISE problem of "health and education". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose – "education" narrows it down too much (she campaigns for other things too); "campaigner" too vague, per above. The combination of two wrongs (too narrow + too vague) does not make something acceptable here: too much of a double mismatch for that. Although two words not overly long for a disambiguator. Also, the disambiguator that has been used before the "wife of ..." for as long as I know on the Sarah Brown (disambiguation) page (nobody ever objected to that disambiguator there. Not ever). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose – despite the four words still too vague ("advocate") combined with too specific ("health and education"): two partial mismatches still combine into a bigger mismatch (per "education campaigner" etc, see above). Also terribly fails WP:CRITERIA #4 (i.e. conciseness). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose — unnecessarily long - just advocate is better. When an actor is disambiguated with "actor" we don't have to specify what kind of actor, etc. But, it's not wrong. --В²C☎17:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Three words, still failing to capture a broad picture, fails CONCISE. She’s not particularly well known for any one of these words, and little better for all three, she is simply too broad for this sort of attempt. It’s becoming a list of epithets. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose – more of the vagueness/narrowness mismatching combination in a conciseness-defying mismatch (see comments to other "health & whatnot" disambiguators above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Worse than “health and education advocate”. Multiple epithets from a long selection, still fails to capture the person, fails CONCISE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak support - I don't think maiden name disambiguation is a bad idea, but it would be better in a case where the subject was notable prior to the marriage and she was well recognized for the maiden name. --В²C☎17:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak support - better than the current version, but if we're going to do maiden name, I'd prefer nee; just like "Sarah Brown (1963)" the extra word of explanation is useful. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Vehement oppose. Vastly worse than the "nobody calls her Sarah Jane Brown" formulation, which is why it has been rejected many times. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – has a capitalized word in the disambiguator, and "née" may be less known to a broad readership, and it is all less concise than the "(Macaulay)" option (which I already think a bad one). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
We use capitalized terms in disambiguators all the time – e.g. with band names when disambiguating albums and songs. It doesn't really seem unusual. (See, however, the further remarks at #Sarah Brown (Macaulay) by Francis Schonken about that.) To me, "née" seems like a nice little word – although not common in everyday conversation. Redirects would also be used, of course. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Re. "We use capitalized terms in disambiguators all the time" – true: the recommendation to avoid it in parenthetical disambiguators is specific to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) (WP:NCP). Afaik it is the only naming conventions guideline that recommends to avoid it. Other naming conventions (e.g. WP:MUSICSERIES) specifically recommend a capitalized parenthetical disambiguator.
Nonetheless the principle to avoid it as much as possible in article titles of pages which are a biography of a single person is, as far as I'm concerned, sound. There are plenty of reasons for that, but this is hardly the place to elaborate on why or how it came to be adopted in the WP:NCP guidance. Suffice to say that, afaik, this is one of the oldest and thus far one of the least contested recommendations of that guidance. WT:NCP would be the place for further discussion if the principle is contested.
In this case a capitalized term can easily be avoided in the parenthetical disambiguator. Below someone says "a description is not clear cut" – I contest that: the "charity director" description has been at the Sarah Brown disambiguation page for as long as I know, uncontested. Seems a clear-cut description to me.
Re. ""née" seems like a nice little word" – I agree on that. I'd even say it is cute. Nonetheless I'd avoid it in a parenthetical disambiguator for the stated reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak support - This might be slightly better than just Macaulay because people are unlikely to know that Macaulay is her former surname; the née makes this obvious. --В²C☎17:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak support - with née in it, it's clear what the disambiguation refers to but she doesn't appear to have used the name Macaulay much since her marriage (and a google suggests at least the name Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications is no longer current) which makes it obscure. Using one of her predecessors as an example, I'm not sure "Norma Major (née Johnson)" would be terribly recognisable. Timrollpickering19:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. The best option. Sarah was notable, by WP standards, as Sarah Macaulay, bases in sources prior to her name change after marrying Gordon. Historically, she was Macauley for longer than not, and the article makes multiple significant mentions of Macauley and the firm named her. For many years, “Sarah Macauley” was the chancellor’s girlfriend widely reported, and including Macaulay in the title significantly adds to recognisability. Far better than the current for sure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Given that a description is not clear cut, it makes most sense to me to use her own name, so Sarah Jane Brown, Sarah (Jane) Brown, Sarah Macaulay Brown, Sarah (Macaulay) Brown, or Sarah Brown (née Macaulay). SarahSV(talk)18:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC); edited 23:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Best of the options: In addition to being the most natural disambiguator, it is notesworthy that she founded a PR firm Hobsbawm Macaulay and worked there for about 8 years. She was also known for her work in the firm. For instance, this BBC article calls it a high-flying public relations career. Also notesworthy is that her LinkedIn profile uses Sarah (Macaulay) Brown. So variations on the basic idea are also acceptable. Kingsindian♝♚09:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Some other variation using "Macaulay" would also be okay, though I prefer this "(nee Macaulay)" option. Perhaps "Jane (Macaulay) Brown" would be more natural than "Jane Brown (Macaulay)", by the way. --Doncram (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure I'm commenting right where I intended to comment. We're in the section titled "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)", yes? The "née" thing is as archaic as "wife of", hence my statement to that effect. TheValeyard (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, my mistake- reply has been struck. I guess I just didn't see the connection between disambiguating with one's maiden name and disambiguating by spouse. AdA&D★01:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Vehement oppose. Archaic patriarchal form. Worse than the "nobody calls her Sarah Jane Brown" formulation, which is why it has been rejected many times. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong oppose – lack of conciseness, two capitalised words in the disambiguator: does neither fit WP:CRITERIA nor WP:NCPDAB very well. And indeed, "wife/spouse of ..." suggests somehow lack of interest in the person in their own right, as if it is someone to whom "Very little is known about her ..." applies (as quoted from the lead paragraph of Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare)). Fails the "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right" recommendation of WP:NCPDAB. The "spouse" qualifier is also somewhat too over-formal to my taste, that is in a context where not both "wife of" and "husband of" can apply. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Is not what she’s best known for, unless you are reading too many tabloids. Most of her accomplishments do not derive from being married to Gordon. Several are associated with him, but do not derive from him. “Wife of”/spouse/partner all imply subservience, which is appropriate for Shakespear’s and Caesar’s wives, not appropriate for Sarah. She is independently notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: You are entitled to your own views, but not to your own facts ... and your claim that SB is best known for something other than being GB's wife is demonstrably untrue. In reliable sources, she is overwhelmingly known as the wife of GB. See above in the previous withdrawn RM at #BHGusageevidence, where I analysed every secondary source currently used in the article: 14 of the 17 sources explicitly introduce her as wife of GB. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:BrownHairedGirl, you appear correct. I’m still uneasy with this form of titling, “derivative” off someone else. Also there were some gendered issues, all fairly strongly expressed in RM#6, less so this time. I’ve been hoping to read your responses to these things. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with gender though IMHO, that just seems like an attempt by the participants in the previous RM, to find fault in something where there isn't really much fault. If Philip May wasn't at the base name I'd be perfectly happy for him to be known as Philip May (husband of Theresa May), because that's also how he is best known. Plus we already have examples of "husband" and "wife" constructs as already noted in the evidence above. To be brutally honest, I'm not actually convinced she would even have notability if not married to Brown. She's smart and independently successful, certainly, but not in a way that would give her her own article if she'd just continued her career at Hobsbawm Macaulay, which she had before she married Brown. Her article was only started in 2007, when the Wiki was already mature, and at the time when it seemed likely Brown would become PM shortly. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Disambiguating people born after 1900 by marital status is a bad idea. At risk of derailing into discussion, the idea that "spouse of" somehow makes it better is ludicrous; the complaint isn't the word "wife", it's describing anyone as solely an appendage to someone else. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose We would not have an article on her if this was her notability because notability is not inherited. Also, it's basically idiotic and tone deaf to claim newspaper prose determines the title because we are not writing a newspaper article, we are writing her biography, with an encyclopedia title. Talking about the 16th century or whatever ancient past use of whomever, just reinforces this choice (and it is a choice, no one and nothing can force us) is nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Vehement oppose as she is not his possession, and this is probably the most rejected of all the rejected suggestions to date. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose: as others have argued, Brown is independently notable, as evidenced by the fact that she has an article in the first place; the first sentence of the article does not mention Gordon Brown and has not for at least a year. Defining Brown in relation to her husband certainly would be dreadfully sexist, but more important when it comes to adhering to policy is that disambiguating by mentioning Gordon Brown would be irrepresentative of why the subject is notable. — Bilorv(c)(talk)02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, while we need this description in the disambiguation page, the title of the article should not emphasise her husband. —Kusma (t·c) 13:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. If the marriage ended, would we then change the title to "former spouse of Gordon Brown"? Implies that the subject has no individual notability apart from her marriage; much more WP:CONCISE options are available. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong oppose – all the issues as the other "spouse of" option, and even less concise (five-word disambiguator...); "the Prime Minister" exists in many countries, and its significance for "derived" recognisability is waning the longer the time that elapsed after that Prime Minister's term. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Worse than wife of Gordon, this is not currently correct, was only correct for a few years. Unacceptable, current is better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (human female) wouldn't disambiguate. All the entries at Sarah Brown are human females as far as I know. That wouldn't help readers at all, but to suggest that "spouse of the Prime Minister" also wouldn't help readers is quite far fetched. Nobody opposing that has so far argued that it isn't actually recognizable, only that it isn't her primary source of notability. — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as we know which Prime Minister she married, this option is worse than the ones that identify him by name. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Disambiguating people born after 1900 by marital status is a bad idea. At risk of derailing into discussion, the idea that "spouse of" somehow makes it better is ludicrous; the complaint isn't the word "wife", it's describing anyone as solely an appendage to someone else. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as currently incorrect. Also, if the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, the subject should have her own title. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Vehement oppose as she is not his possession, and this is probably the most rejected of all the rejected suggestions to date. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose: as others have argued, Brown is independently notable, as evidenced by the fact that she has an article in the first place; the first sentence of the article does not mention Gordon Brown and has not for at least a year. Defining Brown in relation to her husband certainly would be dreadfully sexist, but more important when it comes to adhering to policy is that disambiguating by mentioning Gordon Brown would be irrepresentative of why the subject is notable. — Bilorv(c)(talk)02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, while we need this description in the disambiguation page, the title of the article should not emphasise her husband. —Kusma (t·c) 13:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. For the same reason as the other "spouse of..." or "wife of..." disambiguators. If this were her claim to notability, her biography would be a paragraph in her husband's article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support – This is really what she is best known for. This is why she's notable. She'd never be a charity director of note unless she had been the spouse of the prime minister. --В²C☎17:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Citation please? By the way, Ricardo Montalbán is best known as the spokesperson for Chrysler's "fine Corinthian leather", at least among my generation. So what? What someone is "known for" among the general public does not necessarily define their notability for Wikipedia's purposes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
How is it ambiguous? Because there are other people who are spouses of prime ministers? How is that relevant? If it were, then we couldn't use "actor" or "footballer" as parenthetic disambiguation either, because those are ambiguous with other people who are actors and footballers. But of course we do use those terms, because the context of ambiguity that matters here is within the realm of people with the name in question. To wit, no other Sarah Brown is a spouse of prime minister, so it's not ambiguous. --В²C☎00:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
My apologizes, but I strongly disagree. This is a weird-styled disambiguation, and its not even grammar correct. I'd rather see "wife of..." than this proposed disambiguation. CookieMonster755✉18:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Worse than wife of Gordon, this is not currently correct, was only correct for a few years. Unacceptable, current is better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguators often identify roles that are "not currently correct" and may have only been correct briefly. Witness all the "(footballer)" people who no longer play football (and those who aren't even still alive). —BarrelProof (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – see my objections to "spouse of..." elsewhere, and objections to "prime minister" being vague (too many countries with too many prime ministers over time; recognisability waning over time); over-all also lacks the "in her own right" component, and still four words for a disambiguator that can be much shorter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as we know which Prime Minister she married, this option is worse than the ones that identify him by name. Iffy★Chat -- 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Disambiguating people born after 1900 by marital status is a bad idea. At risk of derailing into discussion, the idea that "spouse of" somehow makes it better is ludicrous; the complaint isn't the word "wife", it's describing anyone as solely an appendage to someone else. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as currently incorrect. Also, if the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, the subject should have her own title. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose: as others have argued, Brown is independently notable, as evidenced by the fact that she has an article in the first place; the first sentence of the article does not mention Gordon Brown and has not for at least a year. Defining Brown in relation to her husband certainly would be dreadfully sexist, but more important when it comes to adhering to policy is that disambiguating by mentioning Gordon Brown would be irrepresentative of why the subject is notable. — Bilorv(c)(talk)02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. For the same reason as the other "spouse of..." or "wife of..." disambiguators. If this were her claim to notability, her biography would be a paragraph in her husband's article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose – fails not only the guidance against capitalization of disambiguating terms for people disambiguators, but also "Try to avoid using abbreviations ...", from the same WP:NCPDAB guidance; also not very precise (not the only Sarah Brown living in the UK); only advantage: concisest of the proposed disambiguators but then, without any disambiguator is even shorter and not very much more imprecise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Support - As the spouse of the former PM, she is the only Sarah Brown that represents the UK. She self identifies accordingly by using the SarahBrownUK handle on Twitter. And that also makes people likely to look her up this way. very concise. --В²C☎17:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - not the only notable Sarah Brown in the UK; certainly doesn't represent the UK any more, and it's debatable whether she ever did (does Melania Trump represent the US?). --GRuban (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Ping: Francis Schonken, GRuban, Timrollpickering... reconsider this one, perhaps? Sarah Brown (politician), though also from the UK, would never be identified nor disambiguated with UK. This Sarah Brown is identified as such because of her national identify as the spouse of the former prime minister - no other Sarah Brown is identified thusly. Her Twitter handle SarahBrownUK makes sense, and disambiguating her with UK also makes sense, for the same reason. --В²C☎19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose stands, sorry. As above: not only notable SB in UK, and doesn't really represent the UK now, if ever. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
My oppose stands too, was seriously considering "strong oppose", but left out the "strong" in the end only because of the conciseness. But more refined my !vote would be "oppose leaning strong oppose". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Still opposed, the problem remains as a "(UK)" disambiguation implies the sole one in the UK. Twitter handles reflect the character limit available, not much more. Timrollpickering10:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. She does not represent the UK, not now, never previously. Never elected. This would appear to be the subject’s personal choice, based on her Twitter name, but it is too presumptuous. Sarah Brown (politician) has a better claim. Not acceptable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose and trout slap for the waste of time. This one was obviously never going to succeed and it's been noted before. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Worse than Sarah Jane Brown, satisfies absolutely nothing other than a small number of people's obsession with parenthetical disambiguation. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – slightly better than the too formal "spouse ...", but more or less all the other disadvantages (lacks conciseness, has parenthetical disambiguating terms with capitals, lack of focus on the "in her own right" aspect). This one wins on recognisability, but that's only one of four of the WP:CRITERIA, and IMHO too problematic on other aspects (too far from the conciseness criterion, fails WP:NCPDAB on at least two points that can easily be satisfied by one of the other available options). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong support - Accurate, but the more generic spouse of prime minister is less problematic. --В²C☎ 17:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Changed from weak to strong support. Apparently "spouse" is not less problematic and this is exactly how she is mostly commonly referred in reliable source and so how we should disambiguate. It's not our job to be any more politically correct than reliable sources are - if this reference is acceptable for them, then it should be for us too. --В²C☎19:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Irrelevant alternative. Is not what she’s best known for, unless you are reading too many tabloids. Most of her accomplishments do not derive from being married to Gordon. Several are associated with him, but do not derive from him. “Wife of”/spouse/partner all imply subservience, which is appropriate for Shakespear’s and Caesar’s wives, not appropriate for Sarah. She is independently notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
And yet that is exactly how she and others are referenced in reliable sources. Our job is to reflect facts (including actual usage in reliable English sources) in the real world, not try to impose our own sense of how things should be. --В²C☎19:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that you are 100% correct. Wikipedia is also composed of editors who are real human people who need to work together. WP:CONSENSUS is a thing too. Even if they're "wrong", you have to admit that some editors completely hate this idea. I recommend accepting that. This whole renewed RM wastes so much space & time on topics that have already been discussed at great length - if you had asked before, anyone could have told you that b1963 & nee Macauley were the only options left that MIGHT get consensus, as the others (like this) have been voted down before. Why continually litigate this option? No matter how "right" it is, it's lost. SnowFire (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Like it or not, this is about the only thing she's particularly known for. We wouldn't have an article on her if she hadn't been the wife of Gordon Brown, so it seems pretty silly to try to desperately to find a disambiguator other than this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose We would not have an article on her if this was her notability because notability is not inherited. Also, it's basically idiotic and tone deaf to claim newspaper prose determines the title because we are not writing a newspaper article, we are writing her biography, with an encyclopedia title. Talking about the 16th century or whatever ancient past use of whomever, just reinforces this choice (and it is a choice, no one and nothing can force us) is nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If this were a conventional encyclopedia we would not have an entry for her at all - Britannica does not, for example. Our standards for notability are much more open than traditional encyclopedias. And having coverage in reliable sources is enough - even if it's due to being the wife of someone, which is the case here. --В²C☎21:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not my game - it's Wikipedia that's not merely encyclopedic. Never has been, never tried to be, never will be. It's much more than that. That's why we have articles like this one (and traditional encyclopedias do not), and disambiguate titles the way we do (and traditional encyclopedias do not), etc. --В²C☎21:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
But her husband is more important. He was the PM. Her notability derives from that. That does not lessen her any as a human being, but Wikipedia is not some moral or spiritual arbiter of a subject's inner worth. — AjaxSmack04:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. This is the subject's primary source of notability and she herself identifies herself as the wife of Gordon Brown. I understand that notability deriving from marriage may ruffle the political sensibilities of some editors, but it is the least worst option. (I'll be happy see Denis Thatcher moved to Denis Thatcher (husband of Margaret Thatcher) for equality's sake if that would help.) — AjaxSmack04:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Vehement oppose. Terrible, terrible idea. "Woman (possession of powerful man)" is not the kind of title we should be using. What century even is this? Guy (Help!) 13:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as dreadful sexism. It's almost like the 20th century didn't happen to some people. If she was only notable as Gordon Brown's wife, NOTINHERITED would apply and she wouldn't even have an article. But clearly she is, so we have to find a different qualifier. Black Kite (talk)20:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED actually states: Note, however, that 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. The spouses of national leaders tend to receive coverage precisely because of that, regardless of whether or not the position carries a formal title. Hence why this article hasn't been AFDed and I'm struggling to think of a case that has. Timrollpickering21:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. This very article has as her primary encyclopedic notability: "known professionally as Sarah Brown, is a British campaigner for global health and education, founder and president of Theirworld, a children's charity, the Executive Chair of the Global Business Coalition for Education and the co-founder of A World at School."[11]Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose: as others have argued, Brown is independently notable, as evidenced by the fact that she has an article in the first place; the first sentence of the article does not mention Gordon Brown and has not for at least a year. Defining Brown in relation to her husband certainly would be dreadfully sexist, but more important when it comes to adhering to policy is that disambiguating by mentioning Gordon Brown would be irrepresentative of why the subject is notable. — Bilorv(c)(talk)02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It's no more sexist than saying that Denis Thatcher is only notable for being the husband of Margaret Thatcher, which is also entirely true and which it says in the first line of his article; he was a successful businessman, but still nobody would have heard of him were it not for his wife. Spouses of world leaders are generally regarded as notable just for being spouses of world leaders and would have an article even if they were not notable for anything else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Who, Sir Denis Thatcher, Bt., the millionaire businessman who was on the board of Burmah and Quinton Hazell? I'm sure he is most famous for being Mr Margaret Thatcher, but it's not the only source of notability, it's fairly likely he'd have a minor biography if the Maggon had not been PM. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
He only received a baronetcy because he was Margaret Thatcher's husband, so emphasising his title isn't really relevant. I'm really not sure he would have had an article otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Support Seems to be the best option and what she is referred to in reliable sources. The current title is quite frankly ridiculous, I've never heard anyone use her middle name and most people would have no idea who "Sarah Jane Brown" is.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, while we need this description in the disambiguation page, the title of the article should not emphasise her husband. —Kusma (t·c) 13:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It is fine to describe her as the wife of Gordon Brown. However, the question here concerns the appropriate identifying title in an encylopedia. If a divorce occurred, would the title be changed to say (former wife of Gordon Brown)? Identifying someone by their partner is antiquated and unnecessary—the full name is valid and works. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. For the same reason as the other "spouse of..." or "wife of..." disambiguators. If this were her claim to notability, her biography would be a paragraph in her husband's article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment - As nom, I wish to make one additional point for the closing panel. Almost all of the opposes to this title, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), are not based on WP policy or guidelines. Rather, they are based on subjective opinion about the "appropriateness" (or lack thereof, rather) of this title, personal opinions which are not supported by usage in reliable sources given the practically universal practice in reliable sources to describe the subject of this article as the wife of Gordon Brown. I urge the closing panel to recognize that these objections are a blatant violation of one of WP's most cherished pillars, NPOV/avoiding editorial bias, and to discount these opposes accordingly. A well-meaning tendency by admins to give undue weight to such WP:JDLI opinions is exactly what often hinders resolution of prolonged disputes like this one. Please remember the closing task is not to find the consensus opinion among the relatively tiny fraction of the community who happen to participate in a given discussion, but to determine the WP:CONSENSUS of the entire community as reflected in policy and guidelines regarding the issue at hand. Do the right thing, please. --В²C☎00:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose it's clear from the above oppose votes that the !vote culture on en.wp is rotten. If that's the case then I now believe that rather than correcting the "Sarah Jane Brown" nonsense it should be left as a flag showing how divorced from reliable sources Wikipedia can be. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – fails WP:MIDDLENAME: "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." The sooner we can get away from this one the better. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong Oppose — fails WP:NATURALDIS as well as WP:MIDDLENAME, as she is not commonly known by this name. It's misleading to title the article this way, as it wrongly implies that she does go by this name and/or is she is commonly referred to by this name. Worse choice of all. --В²C☎17:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose (Recycling my comments from above:) 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. Timrollpickering18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Acceptable. Standard real world biography disambiguating method. It is natural, correct, neutral. No one uses it, which is bad, but it is not wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Much more than acceptable, given discovery of https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/VLW7Kq51iG_JiUT2uXaFbnrBr-I/appointments, which shows the subject having used this form for self identification for a formal purpose in 2012. She uses it. It is without doubt her name, and is now reliably sourced to answer the extraordinary conjecture. The Wikipedia practice of preferring to use commonly used names does not mean that a title implies it is a commonly used name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Amakuru’s “The big advantage of parenthetical disambiguation is that we can use the true common name, the one that we really want to use for the subject (which I'm this case is overwhelmingly "Sarah Brown") and then apply some qualifier *which is clearly a qualifier* so that readers can see immediately that this Sarah Brown is the one they ” is well stated. I prefer (nee Macaulay) and (born 1963) for this reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Not known as --- not WP:COMMONNAME and, within content of articles, absence of a qualifier lowers or eliminates the use of piping to hide any of the above qualifiers, leaving only the option of inserting a misleading Sarah Jane Brown|Sarah Brown pipe. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)06:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not actually true: she is known as Sarah Jane Brown, according to Companies House. Of course most sources abbreviate to Sarah Brown because usually it's obvious in context, but Sarah Brown is taken and so we have to disambiguate. There is absolutely no doubt that her real name is Sarah Jane Brown. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I just searched in Google for her with her full name, and all I could find was a Welsh artist until after I added a disambiguator to the search (I tested "Gordon", "Macaulay" and "1963", each were effective); showing that her full name isn't used often enough for us to use it as the title of the article. Iffy★Chat -- 13:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a different question. Google does not feel any need to uniquely disambiguate names. You make a great argument for moving the article to Sarah Brown, but we can't due to the existence of other Sarah Browns with similar or higher profile, so we're stuck with trying to find an article title which is accurate and not blatantly patriarchal. her full name is one obvious solution, and th eone whihc has been in place for a long time, albeit that offends the aesthetic sense of a small but incredibly persistent group of people. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The "blatantly patriarchal" argument has been debunked to death many times over in this conversation already. We have other articles titled "husband of X". There is no doubt that Philip May and Denis Thatcher would provoke similar debates if they weren't unique for their names. To be absolutely clear, suggesting that we call her "wife of Gordon Brown" is not sexist. It really isn't. The suggestion is there because Gordon was the PM of the United Kingdom. Not because he is a man or is the owner of Mrs Brown. What's the flaw in this reasoning, please? — Amakuru (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it has not been "debunked", it's been repudiated (though, as far as I can tell, only by people who are obsessed with the current non-parenthetical title). Debunking cannot apply to a situation like this where reasonable people can, and plainly do, differ. And repudiation is not refutation. Guy (Help!) 00:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
People are "obsessed" with how misleading the current title is. The subject is generally not recognizable by this name. That's the source of the obsession, not the lack of parentheses, ffs. Claiming refutation is not repudiation does not establish that a given refutation is merely repudiation. That the "wife of GB" description is not considered "blatantly patriarchal" by reliable sources has been demonstrated repeatedly for years, by countless examples of reliable sources using precisely that description. And the opinion expressed by reliable sources is the only one that matters here, not yours or mine. --В²C☎02:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. While there is no doubt that JzG you are a reasonable person overall, and yes, we clearly differ on this issue, that doesn't mean the claim of patriarchy isn't one that can be debunked. Reliable sources of all shapes and colours, left-wing, right-wing, feminist-leaning, you name it, they all call her the wife of Gordon Brown. Because being a wife just isn't a patriarchal at all in the 21st century. Not in common usage. In fact, "wife of X" may also refer to a lesbian marriage. I would imagine that Mrs Brown herself regards herself as the wife of Gordon Brown, but that she also doesn't regard herself as his property. — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That the 'wife of GB' description is not considered 'blatantly patriarchal' by reliable sources has been demonstrated repeatedly for years, by countless examples of reliable sources using precisely that description – not necessarily true. Those sources could in fact be perfectly OK with "blatantly patriarchal". The opinion expressed by reliable sources is the only one that matters – which reliable sources have expressed any opinion at all about Brown's name and identity? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The dispute isn't whether her middle name is Jane, the dispute is whether reliable sources use it often enough when talking about her to pass WP:COMMONNAME, which they don't. Iffy★Chat -- 10:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Jesus, will you people please listen to yourselves? Misleading, B2C? In what way is her full legal name as used by the register of directors at Companies House misleading? What, exactly, is misleading about it? It is 100% accurate. Iffy, sure, nobody says "Sarah Jane Brown" in press coverage, because in press coverage the name Sarah Brown is unambiguous. If you can free up that title, great. Hint: not going to happen. I am reasonably certain you will struggle to find any press coverage referring to "John Smith (English filmmaker)" either. It is the nature of Wikipedia that we have to disambiguate where external sources don't Guy (Help!) 23:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. What's confusing about her name? There's no need to be recognizable, it's just her name. Yes, the middle name isn't frequently used, but some sort of disambiguator is required, so a more formal, fuller name is fine. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What's confusing (and downright misleading) about it is that it incorrectly suggests that that is her name; that that is how she is normally referenced. It would be only slightly more problematic to use Sarah John Brown. --В²C☎18:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the media does not generally use her middle name. The claim that this is not actually her name has been gone over in great detail in previous RMs. Please stop stating your totally unsubstantiated opinion that this is literally not her name as fact. You have been repeatedly challenged on this before and have never provided any evidence of this, while evidence has been provided about Jane (and not John or Horatio or whatever). SnowFire (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously it is her name, I don't think that's in dispute. The main question though, is whether a reader would dismiss the article as "not the correct Sarah Brown" based on seeing her middle name, bearing in mind that it is rarely, if ever, used to describe her in any reliable sources. Compare and contrast to Sarah Joy Brown, who apparently uses her middle name frequently, including on her website, making that a good choice of disambiguator. Putting the middle name in carries some implication that people will recognise that. When I first saw this article a couple of years ago, I had a slight moment of astonishment that the article pertained to *this* Sarah Brown, in a way that using the "born 1963" disambiguator would not. — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown. By ALL accounts, without exception, her name since her marriage has been and remains, simply Sarah Brown. People change their names for many reasons; marriage is one of them. Whether they retain, change or omit their middle name as part of that name change is up to them. I'm not aware of any reason to think that SB retained Jane as her middle name after marrying GB. There is zero basis for using Sarah Jane Brown as the title of this article, and it is incredibly presumptuous and unseemly for WP to do so. --В²C☎19:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact that she is not generally referred to her without her middle name is a legitimate problem with the title due to recognizability. You are also within your rights to believe for whatever reason that maybe she explicitly dropped her middle name after marriage. All I ask is that you stop claiming as fact that she changed her name, when there are many other public figures who have middle names they rarely use but still have. If you ever "become aware of a reason" that this name drop happened, then great, provide some evidence thereof and we'll all be quiet. SnowFire (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how British law works regarding name changes, but in the US the most common method is the usage method[13]. That is, one can officially change their name by simply using a different name. You just have to use it in all aspects of your life. All the evidence indicates that Sarah Brown uses Sarah Brown in all aspects of her life, and no evidence that she uses Sarah Jane Brown in any aspects of her life. Evidence that she does not use it cannot exist, by definition. --В²C☎20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Born2cycle In point of fact there is no such thing as British law, we have English law (which applies to England and Wales) and Scottish law, though they are broadly similar and based on common law. In both cases you can change your surname through marriage or divorce, but legally recognised changes of forenames (which would include middle names) require a legal process, known in England as a deed poll. Mrs. Brown was born, married and lives in Scotland, I believe, so would be covered by Scottish law - there is a form and a small fee. However, there is a very big difference between changing a name and simply not using part of it.
British custom on names is not the same as that in the US. It is perfectly normal for people in the UK not to use their middle name or initial at all, other than on official documents. Unlike the US, where the everyday use of a middle initial is pervasive, in the UK, it is uncommon. Whether this is just habit or down to our smaller population I don't know, but it is absolutely normal for someone to be known as, say, Neil Kinnock even though his legal name is Neil Gordon Kinnock. My credit cards do not have my middle name, it remains my middle name, though official computer systems are unable to recognise the correct spelling (André) and invariably render it without the acute accent on the e. For bonus points, you can be known by a nickname. Paddy Ashdown is actually Jeremy John Durham Ashdown and was even knighted as Sir Paddy Ashdown (because you are given some latitude in these things) but on official documents, Jeremy John Durham Ashdown it is. My late friend David Silsoe was, formally, David Malcolm Trustram Eve, Second Baron Silsoe, and normally referred to in writing as Lord Silsoe. His family name was Trustram Eve, sometimes rendered Trustram-Eve - hyphenation is another thing that is not always consistent.
So, daily usage is a collection of conveniences, nicknames and fudges, but changing a legal name is a formal process that is not optional if you want any kind of officialdom - passports, driving licenses, company directorships, registration as parliamentary candidates or whatever. Your legal name pretty much is what it is until you formally change it. Also: don't use LegalZoom, it's a scam. Guy (Help!) 01:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you serious? When women marry, they usually take the surname of their husband, but I have not seen a single instance where they have, at the same time, changed or dropped their middle name. The marriage record is available online, there are Companies House records using her full name. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Support this one. Saw a notification on the BLPN board about this, looks like a long and tangled history. And a dud of a layout where you have to support or oppose a dozen-odd options, else rick a bad choice squeaking through? that seems designed to tire participants out more than anything, this should have allowed for a simple numerical ranking of choices. Sarah Jane Brown is the woman's name, there's nothing wrong with using that to separate her from the rest. TheValeyard (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
SupportWP:IAR is policy for a reason—no set of rules covers all cases. Why spend years arguing about a title when the subject comes with a full name that works? Opposing the natural name based on rules such as WP:MIDDLENAME and WP:COMMONNAME fails to recognize that despite the beauty of a set of rules, exceptions are sometimes required. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah ‘’Jane’’ Brown IS NOT HER NAME. It’s not her natural name. It’s not her full name. It’s not her name at all. There is NO EVIDENCE that this is her name. Why is this so hard to understand? —В²C☎05:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If you do not understand the status and reliability of a Companies House record, you may not be qualified to participate in this discussion. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"Jane" is her middle name, and "Sarah Jane Brown" has been used, quite officially, see the external link I already mentioned below a few days ago: SARAH JANE BROWN: Information from appointment at HARRODS GROUP (HOLDING) LIMITED at the Companies in the UK website (a website that claims to host "Official Company Documents"). However, that is a primary source, and none of the secondary sources I've seen render the middle name (these secondary sources do repeat the "charity director" qualifier also found on that page, so that qualifier can be presumed to be at least more recognisable than the middle name). The weakness of Johnuniq's argumentation lies imho rather in the IAR rationale: IAR supposes that one can improve the encyclopedia by not following established rules – Johnuniq does not demonstrate that using a less recognisable name is in any way an improvement of the encyclopedia: their IAR seems nothing more than a "I like"/"I don't like" type of argument which would usually have a very low priority in discussions such as this one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Re "is not her name", are you sure? Do we know what official records show? Would a bank give her an account in the name Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)? All we know is that sources call her "Sarah Brown" because that is the informal way people are generally known—it's the common name. However, that name cannot be used here so the title guidelines are being stretched to cover this case. The fact that people have been arguing about the title since 2007 is sufficient reason to invoke IAR. "Sarah Jane Brown" is the worst possible title, except for all the others, and its use has the benefits of accuracy without artificial or antiquated constructs. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Re. "The fact that people have been arguing about the title since 2007 is sufficient reason to invoke IAR" – meh, the only reason to invoke IAR is that a situation would be improved. The article title is Sarah Jane Brown for many years now, and this has not led to less "arguing about the title" (apart from a heavily discussed moratorium for some time – I think we're at the fourth RM after that moratorium). Re. "Do we know what official records show?" – did you see my contribution just above yours: I linked to what (at least one) official record shows, it is "Sarah Jane Brown"?
But as said that WP:OFFICIAL name did not lead to less arguing about the title (which should not be too surprising when being acquainted with the WP:OFFICIAL guidance). So let me propose a somewhat IAR-ish solution (doesn't ignore all rules, but at least the rule against capitalized words in parenthetical disambiguators for biography articles):
Is closer to the politics-related role she played as wife of the former Labour PM (when there was probably more press coverage than nowadays about her), and makes the disambiguation of the other politician a bit less ambiguous. Would this appease disputants, making the IAR worthwhile? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Huwmanbeing you make my point. All three of these are dubious click-bait websites quite apparently plagiarized from... this article (at various times in its history)!!! This is exactly the concern. By using this name we're influencing the whole world to wrongly believe this is her name! --В²C☎17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused — you're asserting that Sarah Jane Brown is not her name at all? What evidence do you have to support that claim? ╠╣uw[talk]20:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That is simply false. Companycheck is a perfectly reputable service that takes its data direct from Companies House. The old Companies House site didn't make it easy to link direct to a record, but fortunately the new one does. See the record for THE OFFICE OF GORDON AND SARAH BROWN LIMITED, look at People, and there, for all the world to see, is a link to Brown, Sarah Jane, with a clickable link to her other directorships, which unambiguously establishes, from an official database of legal records, that this is one and the same Sarah Jane Brown. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If you think the Saltire Society is a "click-bait website", and that Companies House and/or marriage certificates are not reliable, you're not competent to edit Wikipedia. That's not a personal attack, it's a simple fact. Black Kite (talk)20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Support as the least bad option, as per endless painful prior discussion, and let's have an indefinite moratorium on this bullshit. this really is into WP:STICK territory now. Literally the only problem with this, as far as has been identified to date, is that it doesn't have parentheses in it. Fuck it, make it Sarah (Jane) Brown if you absolutely must. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Sarah Jane Brown ishername. Simple. Given what a wasteful mess of disagreement and contention the debate about parenthetical alternatives has become, it's the name we should use. ╠╣uw[talk]14:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
None of those three websites are reliable sources! They plagiarize from our article about her - and that's why they are using a name that is NOT HER NAME - because we are! That's the problem! --В²C☎18:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
B2C: Your assertions seem a bit strange; the Saltire Society (to take one example) lists her here, and I don't see any plagiarized copy on that page. I'm also confused about why you're claiming that Sarah Jane Brown is not her name — do you have a source (any source) that says that? ╠╣uw[talk]20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Support? or No Action as this is what it is now. Came here from Jimbo Wales talk page. I appreciate the time the nominator put into drafting the movement request, but it seems like a big deal over an awfully little thing, none of the other ideas and parenthesis and such look to be necessary when the title is already what it is now. I toss my hat onto the status quo side. ValarianB (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This is surely the worst option of them all. No one ever uses her middle name (outside of Wikipedia), and so to most readers this title would be assumed to be referring to a completely different individual to the wife of the former UK Prime Minister, (becasue her name is quite clearly "Sarah Brown"). This is even worse than the Hillary Clinton naming fiasco, and worse still seeing as "Sarah Jane" is quite a common name too (which some people actually uses as their name!).--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
What, worse than the versions that portray her as a possession of Gordon Brown? And nobody uses her full name? That's simply not true. Companies House do, for one. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
JzG, how does "wife of" imply a possession? This is the 21st century! Marriages are partnerships. If we said "partner of" would that be any different? This idea that "wife of GB" or "whatever of GB" portrays her as a possession of GB is absurd. --В²C☎17:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you are unaware of the history of female disempowerment and disenfranchisement in the UK. It's not so very long since gender and marital status were grounds for disqualification fomr public office, married women were automatically fired from employment, married women's property automatically transferred to the husband on marriage. You can disagree with the view that this is offensive, partiarchal and belittling, but you can't deny that it is a valid view widely held by Wikipedians, hence the repeated rejection of such possessives as potential titles for this article. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Ridiculous the fact that we have a single !vote supporting a name which doesn't exist (other than for the Pembrokeshire seascape painter) and by which Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is never known in any source shows just how daft this conversation is. I say leave it as a testimony to our own collective stupidity. And maybe that'll force the BLP into expressing a view when asked by a local radio interview at some point. Or in the meantime maybe it will help the painter sell a few paintings... who knows. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I assume this is irony for effect. Not possible that this editor really does not understand the difference between a Companies House listing and a paragraph of running text in a newspaper. One hopes. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Support as the best option. Despite strong and absolute claims to the contrary, this name is used in some cases. In any case, it's her name. Omnedon (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Strongest possible support it's clear that this is her legal name (as noted above by JzG), and we use middle names as natural disambiguations for men with common names ALL THE FUCKING TIME ARE YOU PEOPLE MAD?? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Support: Preferable to the suggested parenthetical terms per WP:NCDAB, and appears to be well-sourced per JzG and Huwmanbeing, among others. There probably is no ideal article title, but this is adequate. Use of middle name fits the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Support This is the best choice (nobody is saying it's a perfect one). It's a natural title for an article about her. It's her actual name. Oppose all others as 1. not being natural titles 2. any title that includes variations on 'spouse of...' pre-supposes that she is not notable enough in her own right to have an article and title. Merge or deletion is best option in that case. Support one year moratorium on future move requests. First Light (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Support Obviously her name; we can use names to disambiguate; using "wife/spouse of..." can be seen as offensive/patriarchal, so it would be worse for us to do than "breaking" one of our "rules". Happy days, LindsayHello20:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak support (3rd choice). Consider me Opposed to all other options I've not commented on; most of them are invalid on their face either for failing to actually disambiguate, or failing WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, or all of the above. This one isn't our normal go-to solution, but this is an odd case and WP:IAR applies. If no other solution emerges, this won't be the first time we've disambiguated by middle name and it won't be the last. Her middle name is by no means any kind of secret and is well documented in various off-site publications. However, identifying her as charity director/campaigner is probably more practical and more useful to more readers. That's the best we can do; zero of the options contemplates will be useful for 100% of readers, that's just too bad. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Support as first choice. WP:NCBIO is a guideline and guidelines explicitly say that they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I believe this is one of those times when an exception is the best way to handle this question. It's quite clear that this is her full name as Guy has so helpfully repeated multiple times, so there is no WP:V problem (despite what b2c alleges). Regards SoWhy17:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose just remembered I hadn't actually stated my opinion on this formally, but my view from the previous discussion is unchanged in that I would consider this disambiguator to be less identifiable than the other options I've supported. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. The status quo option. Until a better option gains consensus, this is acceptable. Sometimes you have to invoke IAR to resolve long-running problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. All the others can exist as redirects, so what's the problem? It's accurate and NPOV, and a natural disambiguation of Sarah Brown. Perhaps wp:common name needs some tweaking to bring it into consistency with the disambiguation guidelines... but I think it's clear enough already, and doesn't in any way disqualify this choice. But all the opposition to this name seems to start with the premise that it does. Andrewa (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Ghits need to be interpreted, like all statistics; Without this interpretation, agree they are meaningless. In this case, the first thing to do is to check whether there are significant false positives, and in my case there aren't. Another useful check is, does this search include Wikipedia mirrors (it does) and are they greatly influencing the result (the answer is "no")? But note that there are many reasons that the "same" search from different computers can lead to quite different results, which is why it's important to say what your results are and what they indicate to you, not just the URL. Andrewa (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I followed your link and got more than 27 millionghits (your results may vary), and the first few pages all seemed relevant, including foe example Getty Images list of images of the person in question (with no false positives at Getty Images, either). So I assume you are just claiming that she's more often referred to without the middle name, which is true, but irrelevant. Strongly suggest everyone has another read of wp:natural disambiguation (a policy) which reads in part an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title... (my emphasis). This seems to fit the current case perfectly to me. Not to you? Andrewa (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree that WP:COMMONNAME needs to be tweaked. In particular, our de facto policy of not using obscure names, even when they satisfy WP:NATURALDIS, is IMHO the correct one. If Sarah Brown were a famous mathematician, we would call her Sarah Brown (mathematician) without even thinking about it, we wouldn't call her by the rarely-used name Sarah Jane Brown just because it lacks parentheses. The reason why there is a difficulty with this particular article is because we can't agree on a suitable disambiguator. She's clearly most famous for being the wife of GB, but people don't like highlighting that. So by all means support Sarah Jane Brown as a WP:IAR compromise (though I personally prefer Sarah Brown (born 1963) if we must compromise), but let's not use it as a precedent for anything else, or for an unnecessary strengthening of the WP:NATURALDIS rules. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point about Sarah Brown (mathematician), but doesn't it again show an inconsistency with our current policy? And the same could be said about Sarah Brown (born 1963), why would we prefer parenthetical disambiguation (Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title) when a perfectly acceptable (and common although not as common as without the Jane) natural disambiguation is available? Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
But Sarah Jane Brown isn't actually common at all. Someone had to go off and do a database search in Companies House to verify that that name even exists. The big advantage of parenthetical disambiguation is that we can use the true common name, the one that we really want to use for the subject (which I'm this case is overwhelmingly "Sarah Brown") and then apply some qualifier *which is clearly a qualifier* so that readers can see immediately that this Sarah Brown is the one they wanted to find. A parenthetical disambiguator is obviously a disambiguator, like the subtitles on Britannica, whereas Sarah Jane Brown looks like an actual name, like someone whose given name is Sarah Jane. That's why Sarah Brown (mathematician) will always be preferred to Sarah Jane Brown, and I don't think you'll be likely to change that. — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Jane Brown isn't actually common at all... There's something very strange going on here. What were your results from the Google search (above) that was claimed to support this view, but which gave me millions of relevant ghits?
Sarah Brown (mathematician) will always be preferred to Sarah Jane Brown... Really? The current policy is to prefer natural disambiguation. Are there other examples where this has been violated? Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. The same applies to virtually any ambiguous person who has a middle name but the middle name isn't widely used - we prefer parenthetical in those cases. The wording of WP:NATURALDIS is also clear on this matter: "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" (emphasis mine). Sarah Brown is not "commonly called Sarah Jane Brown in English reliable sources" by any stretch of the imagination. It took several days before even one such source was found. — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and on the question of the "27 million Google hits", the first page of entries when I followed the above link seem to be mostly either referring to the Welsh artist or someone else entirely, or if they referred to the wife of GB that's becaues they were mirrors of Wikipedia. And if you amend it to put "Sarah Jane Brown" in quotes, then it comes down to just 93 hits. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Kind of reinventing the wheel if you ask me. I quoted from the applicable WP:MIDDLENAME guidance in the OP of this subsection. Contrary to popular belief, such guidance is well thought through, as in: this most likely leads to stable article titles. We used to have a less-used middle name disambiguation example in the WP:NCP guideline, Roger Meddows Taylor, until that article was moved to its current article title in 2014 ([18]), and it was no longer possible to retain that example. Then, after the WP:RM that moved the current article to the middle name version it was attempted to update the guidance accordingly, which failed by a wide margin (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 13#Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation?). Of course the guideline allows occasional exceptions, but to the best of my experience these are at best temporary solutions, never really stable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
That sounded a very persuasive argument until I followed the link and discovered the argument to be substantially circular. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Err? First, there are five links in my comment, so I don't know which link you're talking about if you say that you followed "the" link. Second, I don't see what would be circular about it. Either the consensus changes (see WP:CCC) or it doesn't. In this case the consensus clearly hasn't, and the current article title can only be upheld by campaigning in at least half a dozen fora (and that are only the ones I know about). Still wondering what would have happened in the current RM without that high-level campaigning. At least the start of the campaigning was a definite turning point for the popularity of the middle name option. If such extensive campaigning is needed, that kind of indicates, to me at least, that we're steering, again, to a less-than-stable option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The last link. If the policy discussion supporting the policy wording was referencing this article, it is circular to cite that policy and discussion for this article. The Roger Taylor example remains very strong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
? Can't make anything sensible out of that. As a side-note, particular naming conventions are guideline-level, not policy. Naming conventions tend to follow what results from regular RMs, but not in this case, which in my experience indicates that the RM did not result in a stable solution. What would be circular about that? If the exception were inscribed in the guideline, the solution would have been stable without further RMs, nor the need for a moratorium and whatnot. There was a strong consensus against inscribing the exception in the guideline, thus: unstable solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, and I think retaining the current name will continue to prove unstable if that's the route chosen here. With the unsatisfactory "Sarah Jane Brown" title retained, we almost certainly would come back again after a year or two, or following a moratorium expiry. Obviously I don't have any crystal balls to hand, but I think if we moved to any of the neutral-sounding parenthetical disambiguators, e.g. born 1963 or charity director or nee Macaulay, that might actually be an end to the matter, stability achieved. Just IMHO of course. — Amakuru (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support: I hope it's ok to add this as a suggestion. It seems to me that this was the thing for which she became notable, i. e., being a founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, which is a business. This is Paul (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Would not be my first choice for a qualifier, but there nothing objectionable about it and it is correct in the same manner as "(charity director)", "(education campaigner)" or "(health and education advocate)" are also correct. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)20:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Again, unless Sarah Brown is currently engaged in earning her primary income in business or public relations, this would not be my first choice for a qualifier, but these were her occupations at some point in her life. There is, again, nothing objectionable about this qualifier and addition of almost any qualifier is better than leaving the main header as Sarah Jane Brown but, unless she becomes the prime minister, or otherwise gains consensus for a rise to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, her main claim to historical prominence will be as the prime minister's wife / spouse. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)20:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I think any disambiguator attempting to label her by career is a bad idea, as she is best known as Gordon's wife, and also she has multiple roles, as demonstrated by the wide range of options in this survey. People looking her may reject this title because it's not how they think of her. — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support– Similar to the "campaigner" and "advocate" options, but I think that "activist" is a more general term that's marginally better than those two options. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 11:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose for ambiguity with the other Sarah Brown who is called an activist in the first sentence of the lead section. I'd suggest to stop adding ever more far-fetched alternatives that would not make much chance (for obviously not being thought through). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose. At least the other choices have some basis in usage. Why use something nobody else calls her? --В²C☎16:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support– Defines her on her roles rather than her husband's first and foremost, but also avoids the risk of confusing readers who know her primarily as Gordon Brown's wife. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 11:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: I have opposed Gordon Brown-related options above, and this option is really the worst of both worlds – one disambiguator will do, and two is overkill. — Bilorv(c)(talk)02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Neutral: Let's chuck yet another possible description into the hat as well. As the founder of a business this is a possible alternative, although few sources describe her in this way. This is Paul (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose for same reason as last two. No basis in sources. Why use something nobody else calls her? --В²C☎19:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose – entrepreneur is an even less notable part of her public life than being a writer. Please stop proposing these alternatives that really don't make a chance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not "patriarchal"; no one forced her to use her husband's surname. That was her own choice. But it's not helpful, because it presupposed that readers know her original surname, which is highly unlikely other than in the case of British people addicted to TV and tabloids. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Are there any policy-based reasons why a "patriarchal" title would be inappropriate? This wouldn't be my first choice, but apparently some editors think the sole purpose for this RM is to use WP:PARENDIS for this article. Hence an alternative title that does not use brackets. feminist (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
But a comma in this instance is little different from parentheses. The purpose of WP:NATURALDIS is not to eliminate parentheses per se, but to actually find a descriptive name which is unambiguous on the pedia. Virtually any article with parentheses could be expressed instead with a comma: John H. Smith, mathematician for example. Also any of those above could be expressed with a comma... Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon Brown. Sarah Brown, born 1963. These are not natural titles (#1 at WP:ATDIS), they are comma disambiguated titles (#2 at WP:ATDIS), which are explicitly encouraged only for place names. — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Support, no better or worse than (née Macaulay). Macaulay is only her father's surname to the extent Brown is her husband's surname; each was that of a male before she had it. --GRuban (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose – apart from the objections I made above at #Sarah Brown (née Macaulay), which remain valid for this alternative too, comma-separated disambiguation is an extraneous format for a biographical article like this one. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) recommends the format in a few cases, but since the subject of the article does not fall in royalty or nobility categories (she is not known as "..., baroness of ..." or whatever in that vein), and WP:NCPDAB does not mandate comma-separated disambiguation anywhere for those not falling in such categories, this one can be rejected on sight for being simply confusing. Repeating my proposal to stop adding ever more extraneous proposals to this RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion
I implemented a new structure of the !voting area (which should make it somewhat easier to assess for the future closer of this RM), and would move already cast !votes to appropriate subsections (or this general discussion area), unless if someone objects. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
To me that restructure seemed very unhelpful and I removed it while maintaining your comments and comment hierarchy verbatim. Some comments (like mine) contain remarks about all of the candidate titles. Replies to comments may also cross the boundaries of which candidate name is being discussed. Trying to have a separate section about every candidate name is confusing and would be excessively lengthy. You entered a comment at the top of every one of your category-specific sections, which made your comments a very lengthy and complicated addition that seemed to seek to dominate the discussion by placing your remarks first for every candidate. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Imposing a new structure is not just "contributing to the discussion" (and I did not change a single word of what you wrote), but of course if no one else sees a problem with your new structure, I will defer. I just hope there is no implied obligation that participants need to break down their remarks into highly redundant separate comments about each candidate name, and that anyone who would close the discussion will read the remarks that aren't broken down into single-candidate specifics. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I like it, Francis Schonken. I think it will make it much easier for the closer. You can make comments referring to other choices under each section as appropriate, BarrelProof. I've already done so, and am about to strike my original !vote. It does take 10-20 minutes, but I think it's worth it to finally resolve this. --В²C☎17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, blanket oppose all choices on general principle. But I guess if you can't actually build a consensus after years of fighting this little war, making a ridiculously large multiple choice poll to try and obfuscate things to the point that one could claim almost any consensus they wanted is a good second option. Creative, but this is already a trainwreck simply due to how large and unwieldy it is. Resolute02:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Negative much? Some of us recognized years ago that a multi choice approach is the onl6 way we’re going to find a title with consensus support. Right now if you toss out all the ones with a majority opposing we’re down to a handful of choices already. Not that large or unwieldy after all. --В²C☎08:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
What about SNOW closing/hatting the ones with near unanimous opposition? That will simplify the choices. Thoughts? --В²C☎08:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Best to exert some patience I suppose. Let it run for at least a week with all options. Leave it up to an uninvolved evaluator then: they can relist with some options left out if by then consensus on one of the major options isn't clear yet (that would be a somewhat exceptional form of relisting, so they may not want to take the risk to do something that is procedurally less clear, so indeed leave it up to them).
Leave partial closes to a qualified closer. Administrative fiddling by someone involved could undermine this shaky whole process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose the new structure of the discussion per BarrelProof. We were making some progress with the section above that, and the new format is not helpful. Discussions are made by people saying what they like, not what they don't like. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m seeing opposes as well as supports among all the choices. I think a good (and surprising to me) choice is coming out of this. —В²C☎18:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
To me it looks like nee and b1963 have emerged as the two key contenders, and the comment by Francis Schonken about b1963 puts a bit of a tilt in the balance between the two. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, BarrelProof, and I think we should SNOW close all but those two so anyone else arriving here only has to take the time and energy to select between those two. All the other choices have overwhelming opposition. I think encouraging remaining participants to focus on these two will give us a more solid final choice, not to mention a much easier job for the closer. --В²C☎18:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I oppose any premature closing of subthreads, and any closing by involved parties. Further, "All the other choices have overwhelming opposition" is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The definition of "overwhelming" is, literally, "very great in amount." All choices other than b1963 and nee have a very great number of opposes relative to these two. How is characterizing that as "overwhelming" incorrect? --В²C☎18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The wifeGB option doesn't have overwhelming opposition as it happens, and the oppose votes on that one are weak IMHO. Policy should trump WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but who knows. YMMV. I suspect we will end up with b1963, which is unfortunate but not the end of the world. — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
All the wife and spouse variations seem to be running about 50% or more opposed. It's not my expressed preference either, but given the situation, it's hard to see how this discussion could lead to something other than b1963 or nee (or possibly status quo if the closer considers that the default). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: please don't snow close anything. This needs to be closed by uninvolved admins, and they can decide whether to close some sections early. Have you asked around yet for a group of closers? SarahSV(talk)18:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why everyone is so strongly against closing the options that don't have SNOW chance, but I'm certainly not going to do it lacking general support from others. At this point I don't see a need for a panel of closers. It looks like the vast majority of choices can be instantly ruled out, and it will be close to a coin toss between a couple of choices found acceptable by the vast majority of participants. --В²C☎18:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Because most responders are enthusiasts who are dedicated to having this page moved. Wait to see if more uninvolved people turn up. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have !voted above for Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay). It should be understood that minor variations of this approach (using her original name) are also acceptable, and I oppose everything else.
In general, it would have been better if this RfC had been structured as a list of options, where everyone could indicate their preference order, together with a general comment explaining their !vote. This format of "Oppose" and "Support" for every option is needlessly unwieldy. Kingsindian♝♚09:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I and several others said this above. We started out with the approach you mention, a set of options coded by "wife", "spouseGB", "b1963" and so on, which was going well, until someone decided to impose their own format on the debate. I suppose this will lead to the least worst option, rather than the best, but what else can we do. — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I have a brilliant idea: why not find something that actually needs fixing? You know, like the millions of articles with maintenance tags? The amount of time spent discussing which of dozens of unacceptable changes to make simply in order to satisfy a stylistic preference for parentheses is absolutely breathtaking. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Should we strike JzG's !votes (and revert their edits to the introductory table)? – I just saw they proceeded with some highly tendentious canvassing w.r.t. this WP:RM here; this quite flatly invalidates whatever opinions they inserted in the RM itself as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I have a much better idea: let's remove the non-neutral summary table altogether, because it's, well, non-neutral. I posted a comment on WP:JIMBOTALK because this has been discussed there numerous times. In fact, I only spotted this example of keep-asking-until-you-get-the-answer-you-want by accident, because you and your friends "forgot" to ensure that previous debate participants were alerted. My view on the title is as it has been for years now: there is no obvious problem to fix. Sure, stylistically, we prefer parenthetical disambiguation, but thousands of hours have been wasted on trying to decide on a parenthetical title that has consensus, without success. Virtually all the options above have already been discussed and have failed to gain consensus. There is no reason to believe this time would be any different unless the majority of past participants didn't notice the debate and failed to turn up. And I am sure you wouldn't want that, would you? So you should be happy to have this advertised widely. Fuck it, it should probably be on WP:CENT by now, given the ludicrous number of times this same stale debate has been rehashed. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
..& I'm afraid your reply had a bit of an opposite effect if it were intended to convince me of dropping my proposal to strike your !votes in the survey and its subsections for inappropriate canvassing. I never liked the introductory table (so you may have made a friend there!), but I think it might be a bit late to change it dramatically now. I chose to ignore it, and provide my own argumentation, rooted in applicable guidance and reliable sources, in the survey area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Francis, you don’t get to make proposals like that. Especially with the reasons you’ve provided. The descriptions are not neutral, as they are required by policies, and posting to Jimbo’s talk page is not canvassing. Dial back the rhetoric here. 2601:40D:301:B832:E935:FCF0:7D85:A983 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It is on CENT solely because SlimVirgin put it there. You did not contact previous participants in the myriad prior debates, you did not advertise this RM. I am afraid the whole thing looks decidedly underhand. No doubt this impression is partly due to the dozens of previous attempts and the apparent refusal of a tiny handful of people to get over it, but it really does make it extremely hard to assume good faith, especially when exactly the same shitty titles are proposed every time. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Confusing: this alternative is "discussed" in #Sarah Jane Brown above, don't split discussions like this, it only creates more noise.
The following discussion has been closed by Francis Schonken. Please do not modify it.
There seem to me to be two (only) real objections to the current name (three if you further divide the second of them):
There are those who argue that, while it does exist in sources, it's not common enough to be used as a natural disambiguator.
There are those who argue that parenthetical disambiguation is better:
Some say that this is a special case, and so the current policy of preferring natural disambiguation is not applicable.
Some don't offer any reason that this is a special case, which seems to imply that the current policy is wrong, and that parenthetical disambiguation is generally preferable to natural.
And there are various combinations of these arguments!
The policy that supports natural disambiguation, WP:ATDIS explicitly says "Do not, however, use obscure [...] names.", and one source using her full name does not make it not obscure. That leaves parenthetical disambiguation as the preferred option according to policy, from my reading of it. Iffy★Chat -- 21:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
If indeed the full name is obscure, then agree that in terms of the policy, it shouldn't be used. And I think that's probably what several other contributors feel, but I think it's a stretch. But concede that WP:MIDDLENAME, part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), reads in part 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. So this again comes back to just how commonly the name is used.
How can it not be obscure, when there are only one or two known sources supporting it? That's the very pinnacle of obscurity.
on your three points above, I find myself agreeing with all of them at once!
1. Sarah Jane Brown is not used nearly enough to be a good choice of NATURAL DIS, as Iffy says above. It is obscure and not commonly used.
2. This is a special case, because the choice of parenthetical dismabiguator is so controversial and unclear. So we could retain this name for IAR reasons. Using her birth date or maiden name are somewhat less controversial though, so seem like good compromises for where this should be moved to, and I hope that's the way things gets closed.
3. I'm not actually a massive fan of NATURLDIS at all actually. And I think consensus in RMs tends not to be either. New York (state) for example, is a classic case where the perfectly good natural title New York State, which is common in sources, was expressly rejected. We should call things by their proper most common titles, and disambiguate with parentheses if we have to. What's so bad about that? — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
To the contrary, when a person from her culture has two given names plus a surname (the most common form in our culture) and these are all well known, how can this full name possibly be obscure? It's far from the pinacle of obscurity. And I point out that even if the sources are few, they aren't obscure themselves. Getty Images for example.
1. That is just restating the whole issue. How much is nearly enough?
2. It doesn't need to be a special case, only if the current name is rejected and we need to choose a parenthetical .disambiguator.
3. It may be that consensus is swinging around behind you on this. But as was pointed out (repeatedly) in the various NYRMs, New York State is less recognisable than New York (state), as the former name could be a University similarly to Ohio State (which is currently a primary redirect to Ohio State University). It may not be ambiguous in Wikipedia's technical sense, but in a global sense it is. So perhaps not the best example.
Hmmm.... it seems like we are failing to agree on even the basic givens for this debate. To me, the following are "axioms", i.e. starting points from which we debate the substantive issues:
Sarah Jane Brown is not commonly found in sources. We only have one source so far AFAIK. And yes, there's no denying it's her name, and probably appears on personal documents like her passport, but those don't count as reliable sources unless they're published.
Given the above point, and the wording of NATURALDIS, the current title is an WP:IAR title. Whether that's right or wrong, to me there's no doubt it is IAR, and the reason we're IAR is because of the lack of a good parenthetical.
Generally, this article and NATURALDIS aside, precedence shows that we prefer parenthetical instead of middle names. If she were a mathematician, there'd be no debate on the article title. Again, to me that's axiomatic, but your mileage may vary! Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I think we agree on the "axioms", it's the interpretation and possibly the facts on which we disagree. We have looked only at online sources AFAIK, and have found several (not just one). I'm happy to conclude that other published ones exist, but agree that it's a puzzle that online ones are so rare. I'm happy that it is sufficiently "common", you are not. You consider New York State a precedent of rejected natural disauguation, I do not. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit which defeated the whole purpose of having this section, and I've fixed the double section heading (my bad). Francis Schonken, please revisit your previous edit to make sure it's in the right section, it should be easier now, and my apologies for the mess I made. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of this section is to declutter the survey above. When I act as closer of a complex RM discussions I find this very helpful, that's why I started the section and reverted you before. I'm not going to revert this hatting, but would support anyone else who did. Recommend reading Template:Hidden archive top/doc first. Andrewa (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thinking outside the box
We have been arguing about the title of this article for over 10 years... and it seems we are no closer to reaching a consensus than we were 10 years ago. So, I think it may be time to think “outside the box”... has anyone thought to contact the subject, explain our dilemma and ask HER opinion? I know we don’t usually give much weight to what the subject wants (or rather we give more weight to other factors)... but in this case, I think it a viable “tie breaker”. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The above multi-choice approach is thinking out of the box, and does seem to have a good chance of finding consensus for a new title that is neither "Sarah Jane Brown" nor "Sarah Brown (wife/spouse of ...)". Let's give it a chance, shall we? --В²C☎01:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I imagine this would be pretty low down on the list of priorities for them which is why she didn't reply, but 2013 was five years ago now, so perhaps it's worth another try. I don't do Facebook, but is she on there? Perhaps someone could contact her via that. This is Paul (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Primary problem is the bio itself, it's bloated excessive detail about a person that has no real individual notability. Solution is to trim to death and merge into Gordon Brown personal life section. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Diasagree that it is bloated. It is thorough coverage. Everything is properly sourced. She is a public person with many public activities. Merging to her husband would be highly inappropriate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*OK. I'm American, and I'm not at all familiar with this person, or with any of the arguments in what appears to have been a years-long dispute. I have no preferences, and no dog in the race.
The article says that she is "founder and president of Theirworld, a children's charity, the Executive Chair of the Global Business Coalition for Education and the co-founder of A World at School", so I looked at he websites for these three organization.
Theirworld: (theirworld.org) refers to her as "Sarah Brown" in their "About Us" section [19]
Global Business Coalition for Education: (gbc-education.org) refers to her numerous times as "Sarah Brown" [20], but not as "Sarah Jane Brown" [21]
A World at School: (gordonandsarahbrown.com/tag/a-world-at-school/) This is the only "official" website for "A World at School" I could find. Given than the website it's on is "The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown", their chose of name is obvious.
Given this, and that her official website [22] refers to her as "Sarah Brown", I don't see how there can be any COMMONNAME for her other than "Sarah Brown".
That's my input, do with it what you will, I have no plan to stick around for any debate. This is simply evidence, and it shows what it shows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Beyond My Ken but the problem is that there are other people with that name, so Sarah Brown is a DAB. The question asked here is, given that there are multiple Sarah Browns, what should be done? Should Sarah Brown be retained as a DAB? If so, what should be the title of the article for the person whose full name is Sarah Jane Brown? Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
In every location, where a unique name is not required, she self-identifies as “Sarah Brown”. That is her COMMONNAME, and she can’t have it due to other Sarah Browns. At Twitter, she chose to disambiguate herself using “UK”. I don’t think that is a goer her, opposed in its section of the RM. At LinkedIn she chose to disambiguate herself using “Macaulay”. This should be read as a reason for Wikipedia to disambiguate with “Macauley”. At the company register, she chose to disambiguate herself with “Jane”, “Sarah Jane Brown”. This justifies the status quo. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
And the Companies House record shows that her full legal name is Sarah Jane Brown, which is unambiguous on Wikipedia. Sarah (Macaulay) Brown is not her common name either, neither is Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). We can't use her common name because it's taken. The entire never-ending farrago is the result of trying to force this article into a stylistic box into which it does to fit. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
We should settle upon a parenthetical qualifier which has the most Support votes and/or the fewest Oppose votes, rather than be compelled to accept a generally unused middle name form which has even more Oppose votes. To put it into perspective, if we were to decide that she is, in fact, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, would we still keep the main title header at Sarah Jane Brown or would we have it at Sarah Brown? Since the answer is almost certainly Sarah Brown, then we should not keep the header at Sarah Jane Brown simply for disambiguation purposes. To put it into an opposite perspective, if Wikipedia were to eliminate the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with all non-unique names now requiring some manner of disambiguation, would we attempt to avoid the use of qualifiers by structuring main headers as James Gordon Brown and Anthony Charles Lynton Blair or would we choose some form of Gordon Brown (prime minister)/Gordon Brown (UK prime minister)/Gordon Brown (British prime minister)? —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)21:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Why? What makes a parenthetical qualifier that we made up any better than her actual legal name? I mean, it's nice of you to be open about the fact that it's all about the brackets, not everyone seems prepared to be honest about that, but frankly, the "least offensive parenthetical option" which is unused outside Wikipedia is not actually any better than a completely accurate full name which is rarely used outside Wikipedia. Tony Blair is known for being Prime Minister, Sarah Brown is known for several things, hence the fact that no one of them works as a parenthetical disambiguator. We are here only because of a blind insistence on parentheses. There is nothign objectively wrong with the existing title. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Happily the hypothetical issue of readers being left utterly baffled by the failure to pipe the name is unlikely to be an issue, since every article I can find that links to this one, pipes the name already. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the consensus for years has been that, despite the strident assertions of a few, there's actually no obvious problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Taking into account, then, that editors have, in fact, been piping the name Sarah Jane Brown|Sarah Brown]], not due to the need of hiding a non-existent qualifier, but because the name is apparently perceived by those editors as being represented in an unfamiliar form, would such perception, as a result, symbolize an admission that the main header "Sarah Jane Brown" is seen, by all who are piping it, as deficient? —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)23:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you actually hear yourself? If we use her full name then people will be horribly confused and have to pipe it, but if we use parenthetical disambiguation they will pipe it to avoid confusion. Yeah, right. Why not just be honest? You have a stylistic preference for parenthetical disambiguation. That's not actually evil, you are allowed to admit it. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The reasoning I was attempting to present is that among the 5,575,082 articles in Wikipedia, roughly 2,000,000 articles probably have parenthetical disambiguators appended to the main title headers and, other than their appearance on dab pages, where such disambiguators are deliberately expected to be visible, the disambiguators are always hidden via piping when article titles with disambiguators are linked within the body of an article. On the other hand, main title headers without disambiguators, such as Sarah Jane Brown, are expected to stand on their own, without the need for piping (although WP:EASTEREGG links can be found within various articles). In fact, other than this, possibly unique, title under discussion, Sarah Jane Brown|Sarah Brown]], I cannot recall any other Wikipedia article main header which is undisambiguated and yet is regularly piped or is expected to be piped each time it is linked within other articles. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)01:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Roman, almost nothing you’ve written here makes any sense. First, the option with the most support votes compared to their oppose votes is Sarah Jane Brown option. Also, many, many articles are piped by users. Sometimes just for aesthetics. Your claims regarding this point are incredulous. 2601:40D:301:B832:843C:6E0:1C9F:56E (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I regret that you were unable to discern the sense in my comments and will address the points which you mentioned. The Sarah Jane Brown option did, indeed, attract the most votes — the highest number of Support votes and the highest number of Oppose votes — with the Support votes undeniably outnumbering the Oppose votes. The initial words in my first posting, "We should settle upon a parenthetical qualifier which has the most Support votes and/or the fewest Oppose votes", represented a suggestion which, obviously, offered the option of acceptance or rejection. As for the claim that "many, many articles are piped by users", I will highlight the key words in my previous posting: "I cannot recall any other Wikipedia article main header which is undisambiguated and yet is regularly piped or is expected to be piped each time it is linked within other articles". I wrote those words in response to the previous posting's statement that, "every article I can find that links to this one, pipes the name already". —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)06:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: that does appear to be the situation — everyone against the Sarah Jane Brown form would have at least cast an Oppose vote there, while agreeing to accept virtually any qualifier. If this comes up again in the foreseeable future, perhaps the initial proposal of a 1 to 10 "instant runoff" type of vote would prove to be a more-precise indicator of opinion. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)08:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Roman is basically making the point I made somewhere above. Parenthetical disambiguation is absolutely the norm on Wikipedia, even where more obscure "natural" titles are available to us. The *only* reason there's a massive debate here is not because people do or don't like parentheses, but simply because there is no obvious term to put inside said parentheses. If Sarah Brown were a mathematician, we would title her Sarah Brown (mathematician) without even thinking about it. But because we lack a definite sense of what she's notable for, we're left looking for other options. In that situation, it may be tempting to resort to her full name, because at least that's unambiguous... but that goes against how virtually every other article in the pedia is titled, and as such it can cause confusion when readers come across a name they've never heard of. main title headers without disambiguators, such as Sarah Jane Brown, are expected to stand on their own, without the need for piping is a very salient point. That's why for me, moving to Sarah Brown (born 1963), which looks like the least worst option, is preferable to leaving the article where it is. — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Generally agree, but I think the rhetoric is unhelpful... strongly disagree that Parenthetical disambiguation is absolutely the norm on Wikipedia, whatever that means. If it just means that it's more common, that's probably true, but if it means that therefore we should apply it everywhere, that (to me) is obviously false. It's the word absolutely that seems the main problem, but even the norm would be problematical, albeit less obviously so.
Just as a procedural note, for when the time comes (which should be soon), I've requested closure of this discussion here, with a recommendation for at least three uninvolved editors to assess the discussion. SkyWarrior02:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have yet to actually begin the closing process, just in case anyone else would like to volunteer. I will email those who have volunteered shortly so we can begin. SkyWarrior00:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear to me just how this multi-admin close is supposed to work. And of course a recent attempt at a panel close didn't work at all, and this seems to me to be a far more complex and controversial RM than that one. But I'm involved, so I guess I just need to leave it to whatever uninvolved admins volunteer, and hope for a clear decision. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
How a three-member panel closing team is supposed to work? They are supposed to be three self-selecting unbiased uninvolved experienced discussion closers, and are are supposed to agree to a singular result and individually sign off on the same closing statement.
In principle, the request for a three member panel is no more than someone's request. An experienced admin closer may very well, at any time, unilaterally, exercise their discretion and close on their reading of the consensus. Conceivably, the first arriving closer gets to set their rules, as long as all agree.
Yes, the RM panel closure RM to which I referred was the New York one of 2016. One of the panel of three found consensus to move and the others (one after a delay that was never explained) both found no consensus either way, you can see their initial verdicts at wp:NYRM2016#Discussion by panelists, and they then all pretty much disappeared from the discussion so it was left to an involved party to (eventually) formally close it. We don't know whether the panel consulted off-wiki. The RfC to which you linked was held soon after the closure and found consensus on the primary topic issue that was the basis of the move case, but the two panelists who had found no consensus hadn't said whether or not they considered this a factor. After a moratorium period, a fresh RM found consensus to move, based largely on the RfC... but I think the move supporters were all astonished that this was necessary. I have frequently called NYRM2016 a "fiasco", and wondered whether the reasons for the outcome will ever see the light of day, but it merely delayed the eventual result.
I know, they asked me to join in on the fun (otherwise I wouldn't be here). Thought I'd see what sort of mess I'd be looking at and figured I'd close a few of the more-obvious ones while I was at it. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah goodie. Was thinking of helping out in the close, but after having this in my watchlist for the past few days, I think I'm a bit sick of people screaming over this.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
(Sigh) Please hang in there, I've often seen far worse, see User:Andrewa/A personal plea. If I've screamed I apologise, unreservedly. If I've made others feel like screaming, I also apologise, but I'm human too and it happens (and as a logician by training and auditor by trade I am both academically and professionally qualified to split hairs, which is not a positive). (;-> Andrewa (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)\
Strongly support this action. Definite progress and no downside. If any have !voted only for closed options, they should now consider supporting at least one second (or later) choice. Disclaimer: I am involved, but I think that while this recommendation (and action) probably works against my personal view on the best disambiguator, it works towards achieving eventual consensus... which is the aim of all talk page discussions. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Has the panel been formed yet? I would love to see this discussion being closed. I have been following it since the first relist, which now seems aeons ago. —usernamekiran(talk)21:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There is nobody better qualified on matters of disambiguation, they have a track record of exceptional commitment and sound judgement based on long experience in the area and deep understanding of guidelines etc.. But maybe I wouldn't wish this one on them. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, by "they" I meant only bd2412. I'm less familiar with Primefac (but what I have seen is good), and I don't remember seeing SkyWarrior in any RM in which I've taken an interest, so have no opinion at all. Andrewa (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to serving on a panel in this capacity. I would note that I !voted in one of the interminable move discussions on this subject a few years ago, so I could be considered to be involved. I believe I am fully capable of participating dispassionately in a close (I occasionally close discussions that I am involved in on Wiktionary, where there are fewer active admins, usually where there is clear consensus, or where the close goes against my own position, so there is no appearance of shenanigans). bd2412T22:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
BD2412 would be great clerking or managing the closers, if there are to be three. A volunteer closer who becomes busy in real life, or if the three have trouble structuring their close, (think NY2016), thing like this can need uninvolved expert assistance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You appear to have expressed opinions about the title in two prior move discussions (on 24 April 2014 in RM#8 opposing "wife" and expressing a preference for the non-marriage-related role identification "(philanthropist)" and on 9 May 2015 in RM#11 suggesting "(charity patron)" and expressing a distaste for the "Sarah Jane" formulation) and to have also commented about a moratorium proposal on 24 October 2014. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I stopped searching when I found the 2015 discussion. The discussion on a moratorium is frankly irrelevant to the issue at bar. I should also note that I am working on a major writing project which has already impacted my availability, and that I will probably be almost completely out of touch for the last half of March. bd2412T22:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: Some detail was added to my comment above after that reply was provided. The intent of the added detail is just to avoid people needing to look up the details for themselves. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The good-faith offer is appreciated, but none of these three people seem to be admins, and one of them appears to have been on Wikipedia less than two years and to be 18 years old, another appears to have been on Wikipedia less than three years, and the third appears to have been on Wikipedia less than five years. This topic seems rather sensitive (with 14 prior RMs and an MRV), so I'm not sure that is fully adequate. AFAIK, the members of such panels are usually admins. (Primefac is an admin and has been around for eight years; I don't see an issue there.) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts @SkyWarrior:, but I am sorry I must be disengaging here. I think , the remaining with Primefac as lead are capable of handling it all. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing you mean that the article should stay at Sarah Jane Brown (and I disclose this was my !vote). But my interpretation of that data is that a majority, and perhaps even a rough consensus, is in favour of parenthetical disambiguation instead, and that the best chance of building a consensus for any particular name is for a move to Sarah Brown (born 1963) (and I disclose this is my second choice). Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Counting raw !votes? Seriously? You know the ! in !votes stands for "not", right? Reminder from WP:NOTVOTE: "It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are.". A lot of those !votes need to be completely ignored, per this longstanding criteria. If you're going to count, at least first omit the ones that are not based in policy, guidelines, conventions or usage in reliable sources. We have to remove the WP:JDLI !votes. --В²C☎01:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Counting raw votes is a very poor way of assessing consensus, and I'm not attempting that. But it can help to indicate the direction in which consensus can best be built. Agree that as it stands many !votes would be discarded, but far more important, neither of us should be making that call, again per longstanding criteria. Or do you think you're uninvolved? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Not completely cut and dry, Dave Dial. There is clear scope to close anywhere from "no consensus to move" to "rough consensus supports the current title". In either case, I suggest an addendum, "Due to thoroughness of canvassing of options, and level of participation, with the resulting failure of any proposed alternative to approach the support level of the current title, in the absence of significant new information, the question should not be revisited". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, that depends. If the involved parties could all agree to a compromise solution that would be the best of all worlds. Or rather, by everyone rallying round one compromise solution, the job of the closer if then made very easy. Your concession that (born 1963) is a good second choice and that consensus seems to favour parenthetical is a useful step in that direction, Andrew, but I don't know if there's much prospect of getting broad agreement! And regarding SmokeyJoe's proposal to not revisit the question, I strongly disagree with that. A moratorium of a year or even two could be useful, but saying we'll never discuss it again, particularly given some of the flaws that have emerged in this discussion, is counterproductive. I still personally believe there's a stable title to be found somewhere, along the New York (state) / Yogurt / Myanmar / Barbara Bush (born 1981) lines, but that we aren't there yet, and the current title will continue to be controversial if it's retained through a "no consensus" decision. — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
PS - I'm smiling a little at the assertion that this is "cut and dry"... funny then that I have genuinely no idea which way this one might go! I think it's very much a line call at the moment, hence why a compromise would be useful. — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I think it's funny that people who act as if they are above everyone else because of the date they started editing or some circular reasoning, because it was pointed out that over two-thirds(67%+) of those who !voted supported keeping the page where it is, Other than that, I don't appreciate the snide comments. Dave Dial (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
A small but unfortunate update: Winged Blades of Godric has recused themselves from the closing due to "multiple factors". Primefac has agreed in pure assistance, but not with actually deciding consensus. As I cannot do this alone, we will need more volunteers, preferably an admin or two. If there is any uninvolved editors reading this willing to help, let me (and the rest of the community) know; this should be closed soon. SkyWarrior14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Also we're not necessarily ready for a close yet. The process of eliminating options for which there is no prospect of consensus (by uninvolved editors closing those sub-discussions) is continuing and looks set to run a little while more. But IMO any uninvolved admin could now close this if they were prepared to assess that a consensus has been established (or if they assessed that no consensus is possible, but I think that should be a last resort). Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we need a panel
Personally, I think that a panel closure is neither necessary nor advisable. I think the closing of obviously dead options is good (as I said above), provided it is done by uninvolved editors, and that this process may well lead to a rough consensus on either a specific move or on remaining with the current title. I remind any that need it that I am involved. but then so was the proposer of the panel closure, from memory.
If that consensus can be achieved, then any uninvolved administrator could then close the RM as per the normal closing instructions, and this closure should withstand any appeal to WP:MR, in my opinion. And we wouldn't need to break any new ground at that stage, procedurally. But non-admin closure doesn't seem a good idea to me, even in a panel.
Note I'm NOT disparaging uninvolved editors from giving the eventual closure a hand. I say again, that's constructive IMO, and may even set a valuable precedent. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
My memory was faulty. Proposer of the panel was previously uninvolved, and is a page mover but not an admin, and while they've been here only since March 2016 they've picked things up awesomely quickly as their page mover status testifies. I still think this should be an admin close, but if uninvolved editors (and particularly page movers) want to participate by closing and/or hatting sub-discussions appropriately (ie please read the relevant guidelines etc.) I think that's helpful. The acid test is, will it help the eventual closer(s)? Andrewa (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Disagree that page mover permission testifies to having awesomely picked things up. I think it has settled a bit, but for a long while page movers were noted at WP:MR for their frequency of bad RM close decisions. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover does not test for experience in closing difficult discussions, as WP:RFA does. I also note that so many page movers forget that they are still WP:NAC-ers, are supposed to tag their closes with {{nac}} or {{Rmnac}}, and discouraged from closing controversial discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Certainly, page mover simply means that you've impressed (only) one admin! I still think it's impressive to have asked for and been given the right so quickly. I'd hope that no admin would give it lightly... after all, we're the ones who need to clean up the mess if this authority is not competently used. Agree that the right was given far too easily at one stage, but I think we learned from that. Agree that the failure to tag as NAC is a continuing problem, but I think that's more a doco/guideline problem than a reflection on the current quality of page movers... on average they now show at least as much care and competence as admins (which is a bit scary). But there are some duds in both camps. Andrewa (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not rocket science, but it is tedious. Picking the contenders
More pre-RM discussions in preparation for opening the formal RM above. Hatting to avoid confusion with the subsequent RM discussion itself (although review of this discussion would probably be helpful and is recommended for those preparing to comment in the RM and for anyone preparing to close it). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With so many options, it is not appropriate for a nominator to comment on every option, taking the highly privileged position of first say on every option and forcing everyone else to respond. Instead, I'm providing a list, sorted by similarity not recommendation. At the top is the current. All others should be compared against the current. I think this is a valuable educational exercise for the first round of discussion. If no one think one of the options is better than the current, then it should be dropped. I think, for example, that all of suite 5 are not serious contenders. All these options are taken from the archives, but it is tedious work, the archives being so repetitive. If I have missed any, please add them. I suggest that the easiest approach, at least for the early participants, is to copy the list and comment on each independently. Do not just lightly pick your favourite and say "strong support" unless you are familiar with Plurality_voting#Disadvantages. Do feel encouraged to disapprove of whole sets. A reason, or argument, should always be provided. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", it is written somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I will ignore all options I don't think are viable. This includes all of (5). Inlcudes all of (6) as all mediocre, all too small a subset of what charactersies the subject, thus all failing to be a recognisable characteristic. I'll ignore 4b-g as irrelavent alternatives to 4a, but would revisit if others speak to them. Thus:
(2a) Sarah Brown (born 1963) 8/10. I believe disambiguating by birth year is policy-recommended when there is no good characteristic/occupation disambiguator.
(4a) Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) 4/10. Ambivalent. Strongly discouraged by the strong arguments against in the archives. I am not OK with the strategy of "keep trying until the opponents are worn out".
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC) If others' input caused me to change some opinions, I would edit the above. I recommend that every keeps their comments in their own !vote section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all this work. That's a lot of of options! I did not realize that the original title was Sarah Macaulay. At first I thought that indicated she had been notable prior to her marriage to Gordon Brown, but it was created in 2007 when she was already married to him, and references in the original article refer to her as Sarah Brown. So I don't think she was ever notable as Sarah Macaulay despite the original title. --В²C☎17:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You don't think she was ever notable as Sarah Macaulay? That’s your opinion, ok, but it is definitely not a fact. There are many notability-attesting references referring to her as Sarah Macaulay, including one from the PM’s office just after their marriage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It appears she was never notable (by any name) until after she married the future PM and became Sarah Brown - she was never notable while she was Sarah Macaulay, certainly not enough to warrant a WP page. Once she became Sarah Brown and notable, biographical references to her using her former pre-married name are not evidence that she was notable as Sarah Macaulay before she became Sarah Brown. --В²C☎21:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
(1). I disagree. There are multiple reliable secondary sources that named her as Macaulay. (2) This is an irrelevant line of argument. Pre-marriage notability is irrelevant. A valid argument is where “Macaulay” improves recognisability. (Over Jane, definitely I think). It is not so helpful to create threaded irrelevant arguments under my !vote. It is better for you to explain yourself under your own !vote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That there are multiple reliable secondary sources that named her as Macaulay after she became notable as Sarah Brown does not refute my point. This is not an RM so I don't understand why you're talking about !votes. --В²C☎21:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe. Good faith question: please correct me if I am wrong. You are currently the only editor active on this page within the last month of discussion who for themselves (i.e. not anticipating what others object to) solely for themselves, personally objects to "wife". Is that correct? Has anyone else currently active objected on behalf of themselves? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcc?
"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)"
“Wife of” was formally rejected in a previous RM. If a new RM wants to reverse that decision, all participants from that discussion must be advised. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Following on what SJ is saying, I guess my main complaint is that it's not really fair to take people who have an opinion on something (say, for example, my opinion that Jane Doe (wife of John Doe) is a belittling way to disambiguate someone), and force me to continually particpate in these discussions multiple times, whenever someone wants to start a new one, because if I ever get tired of saying it, others will swoop in and say "consensus can change!" and change it to something I think is belittling. That is probably the main reason for the previous moratoriums, to try to prevent this "try to win by exhausting the opposition". We really need to respect previous opinions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you haven't said "I Floquenbeam object to wife, not because of concern what others think, but because I Floquenbeam find wife objectionable". If you do fine. But you haven't said that up to this point. So that is two Jcc and Floquenbeam who personally object to wife. That's fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 8 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.
Born2cycle, I enjoy our collaborations despite our occasional crossed swords. Part of the reason is probably that, like me I hope, you are obviously here, but again like me I confess, you are generally hard to convince and that can be a mistake when the goal is consensus. I often make it, hence that reminder to myself. Best. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There are understandable rules against changing relevant policy during an active discussion depending on that policy. But it's pretty common practice to discuss policy after a discussion closes in which consensus was apparently not consistent with that policy. That's all the discussion at WT:D was about. I don't think I'm hard to convince, but I admit I might be wrong about that. I certainly recognize I come across as being hard to convince. In any case, is there anything wrong with any of that? --В²C☎19:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It's possible that you have broken no rules. I still think it was inadvisable, particularly in view of the closure which reads in part an indefinite moratorium on further move requests will be implemented, which can be lifted no sooner than 2 years from now if there is consensus for a new RM at that time. There was, in my opinion, never any chance that starting this discussion now would produce a net improvement to Wikipedia.
Any discussion motivated principally by this series of RMs should now wait the two years. I do not necessarily agree with this ruling, but I'm involved and in any case I think we should run with it even if we disagree. Again, see User:Andrewa/Rules, rules, rules#But don't which I think should apply to rulings as well as rules (and I might update the essay to that effect). Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
