Talk:Doe v. Regional School Unit 26

Redirect discussion
A discussion is currently taking place at Talk:Nicole Maines regarding the potential redirection of this article in to that article. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Doe v. Clenchy → Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 – Actual case name when the case hit the supreme court was no longer Clenchy but Regional School Unit. Clenchy was a lower court ruling 91.110.126.179 (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC). 91.110.126.179 (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, with the caveat that the respondent is actually "Regional School Unit 26" not "Regional School Unit" (i.e., it should be moved to Doe v. Regional School Unit 26). The case at the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (when the IP above refers to "the supreme court" they mean the SJC, which is the top-level appellate court for the state of Maine) is the one that matters, and is the one that renders the dispute notable. The opinion, showing the accurate caption, may be found on the SJC's web site at.
 * It is properly referred to as Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 in scholarly publications, e.g.:
 * Sterling, Melissa, "To Pee or Not to Pee - Where Is the Question: Transgender Students and the Right to Use Public School Restrooms", 21 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 757 (2014-2015);
 * Archibald, Catherine Jean, "Transgender Student in Maine May Use Bathroom That Matches Gender Identity - Are Co-Ed Bathrooms Next", 83 UMKC L. Rev. 57 (2014-2015);
 * Samar, Vincent J., "The Right to Privacy and the Right to Use the Bathroom Consistent with One's Gender Identity", 24 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 33 (2016-2017)
 * and ten other articles found on Heinonline. This sounds like an easy call. TJRC (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support move to Doe v. Regional School Unit 26, the proper citation format. bd2412  T 02:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and speedy close. Should most likely have simply been moved, without opening a discussion.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have though no way of moving a page, plus a discussion cements the move with a demonstrable community consensus. This prevents disputes with those who have been redirecting, and diffuses a potential edit warring situation, or accusations of making a point or being confrontational. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing. This falls in the "Unregistered users ... are unable to move pages" bit of WP:RM. As a happy accident, this discussion sussed out the missing "26" in the case name; if you had been able to just boldly move it, it would have ended up at the wrong place. TJRC (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And wasn't suggesting that the IP move it. Simply that it could have been added to Requested moves. Where most likely the "26" would have been discovered.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding to WP:RM and starting a discussion are pretty much the same thing in these cases. Dekimasu よ! 00:27, 3 August 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.


 * Comment I don't care enough to reopen this, but I think that per WP:COMMONNAME, which is the relevant policy, this article really should be named Doe v. Clenchy. Two of the five criteria noted in the policy would argue for Clenchy: it is more recognizable (or at least it gets more google hits and appears more in the sources cited in the article) and is certainly more concise. With regard to the other three criteria, I don't think argue for one over the other. Yilloslime (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that those were generally references to the case that were made before the case was finalized at the Connecticut SJC. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the Maine SJC. At any rate, this is not what I'm finding: When I do a google news search going back 1 month using the search "nicole maines" AND "regional school unit" I get only one hit (this Wikipedia article.) If I instead use "nicole maines" AND "clenchy" I get lots of hits. Yilloslime (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I meant "Maine".
 * Clenchy was the name of the Superior Court case, which is decidedly non-notable. Clenchy might be worth a line in the Nicole Maines article, but it isn't the name of this case, and it isn't notable. As a legal case, which is the subject of this article, the correct name of the notable Maine SJC case should be used. We don't misidentify cases, even if a news story relying on stale information might. TJRC (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)