Talk:Jeannie Drake, Baroness Drake

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved. While many here feel that wp:NCPEER ought to be reworked, I think the proper place for that discussion is at the topic guideline talk page so that others with a vested interest in this can also weigh in. Consensus here does not seem to be that the subject is almost exclusively known by the unadorned personal name, so we should include the peerage title despite not needing disambiguation. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeannie Drake → Jeannie Drake, Baroness Drake. Relisted in hopes of broader discussion. Orlady (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Better known as a trade unionist and comissioner of the Human Rights comission. Also no disambiguation is required for this article title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This peeress is no longer wholly or exclusively known by her pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the strongest possible terms for consistency in naming per policy and guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE, WP:D and WP:PRECISION that apply to all Wikipedia article titles. The subject is most commonly known by the current title; adding peerage information is additional precision that is completely unnecessary, all good reasons to ignore WP:NCPEER. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C's arguments are bogus, because the policy WP:TITLE explicitly permits topic-specific naming conventions such as WP:NCPEER. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the naming criteria identified by WP:TITLE is consistency which says that consistency with titles "which follow the same pattern [documented in the naming guidelines like WP:NCPEER] as those of similar articles are generally preferred", however, it also says that ideally such guidelines are followed when they "indicate titles that are in accordance with the [other] principal criteria". In this case, the pattern indicated by the WP:NCPEER guideline is not accordance with the other principal criteria.  In particular, WP:NCPEER indicates a title that is neither concise nor natural, and is clearly more precise than necessary. We have no obligation to following a specific naming guideline so out of step from general naming criteria.  In fact, we have an obligation to ignore it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C, do you see that word "ideally"? Do you understand what it means?
 * In this case, NCPEER falls a little short of the ideal in some respects, because it (as with other topic-specific conventions) it balances the general principles of article naming with the specific requirements of the topic.
 * Once again, you are trying to use an RM discussion as a venue for your war-of-attrition against the general principle of topic-specific naming conventions. You are quite entitled to disagree with existing policy or guidelines, but the way to change it is by a centralised discussion at WT:TITLE or WT:NCPEER, rather than by pasting an identical set of fundamental objections to the guidelines into numerous RM discussions. Your !vote above was identical to the !votes you pasted into at least half-a-dozen similar discussions, in which you made no comment at all on the article in hand. Please stop disrupting wikipedia by trying to fight the same battle on as many fronts as possible. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as no disambiguation is required. I would only support if another person with the same name had an article. Racklever (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCPEER. Not well-known in her former roles; the wikipedia article on her was created only after she received her peerage, and per WP:NCPEER, peers should be known by their titles unless "almost exclusively known by their personal names", which is not the case here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Politicians who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have said elsewhere, this individual is a trade unionist, not a politician. Ennobled trade unionists have only rarely become known by their titles. Warofdreams talk 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not a Crystal Ball and what they are currently known is what we have to take as the current commonly used name. If in the future the individual is known regularly by their ennobled title then that would be grounds to change the article title. To though say, it is expected that the names they are known by will change is not how things work on Wikipeida.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Its best not to use titles and honorifics when naming articles, unless it is needed to disambiguate the article from another.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.