Talk:Jo Hayes

Future
Hayes has said she intends to stand in the future for Wairarapa. Is she related to the present Wairarapa and National MP, John Hayes? Hugo999 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No.  Schwede 66  02:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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, per the discussion below and at least some evidence of common usage. Dekimasu よ! 06:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Joanne Hayes → Jo Hayes – I see Hayes being referred to as 'Jo' instead of 'Joanne' with increasing regularity and thought to test whether there is agreement that this has become the COMMONNAME.  Schwede 66  22:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No evidence offered supporting the move. Suggest the nom read WP:RM: Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the policy on disambiguation and primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I readily admit that my nomination hasn't been following Wikipedia policy to the 'letter of the law'. What I was trying to achieve is to reach out to other Kiwi editors interested in the subject matter, and the best method for notifying active editors is to use a formal move request. You could say that I've been using the Number 8 wire approach, which works for other Kiwi editors but has not been turned into Wikipedia policy yet. I maintain that COMMONNAME is the appropriate policy and suggest that if active editors in New Zealand come to the consensus that this is so, then the approach is fit for purpose. It's not as important an issue to put time into it; the fit for purpose approach is good enough. I for one will certainly not engage in ongoing wikilawyering on something that is, in the big scheme of things, quite trivial. We've just had a general election and my energy will continue to go into updating some of the relevant articles (I have a worklist with 71 electorates and some 200 candidates with articles; will keep me busy for a while). I will not loose any sleep if the article isn't moved.  Schwede 66  21:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to neutral in view of evidence offered below. It's not enough to support the move IMO, but I will not oppose it, which gives by my assessment a strong consensus to move. So let's move on. Andrewa (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. The electoral commissions official site lists her as Jo Hayes. As does the National Party website. If the official sources are listing her as Jo then we should too. Mattlore (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This argument appears contrary to the policy to which RM arguments should relate, and which many, many notices urge contributors to read before raising or discussing RMs. See also the essay at WP:official names which explains the policy on this particular issue. No change of vote, but thanks for the evidence, it's an improvement. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, while her official name would be Joanne Hayes, "In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." I know your point was you want page views and other google stats, but I'll leave that to the nom or someone else to provide. I will however say that a quick search on google shows 4 news articles about her under "Jo" and 2 about her under "Joanne" . I think both options meet the Recognisability, Nautralness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency tests. Mattlore (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, that's not my point at all. In fact page views are IMO a very poor indicator, a last resort at best. My point is far more basic than that. If we are going to ignore policies and guidelines, why have them? If we are going to ignore the notice pointing to the relevant policy that is posted at the top of every RM discussion, why have it? I'm trying to be gentle about it. Nom and you are both highly experienced editors. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly the subject uses both names, but the NZ press is using Jo. But I'm mainly supporting the move because it's supported by the editors who I'm aware of as editing in this area User:Schwede66 and User:Mattlore. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Let me put the above discussion into perspective. I came along to this RM hoping to close it. It was already in the backlog, which means it had been more than 24 hours since the discussion period expired.

No case had been made for a move, the nom had not even read the instructions and nobody else had commented, but I was not comfortable to close it not moved either, that might have been seen as a supervote. So, I voted against in the hope that another admin could then validly close it as not moved, and we could all get back to more constructive pursuits.

Then another contributor cast a vote to move, on grounds that were completely baseless in terms of WP:AT. When this argument was challenged they then said that they thought there might be evidence that would support a valid case to move, but they were going to leave that to the nom or someone else to provide. And their support vote still strands on the basis of that unprovided evidence, as far as I can see.

There is a near-identical RM by the same nom at Talk:Matthew Doocey.

Is it any wonder that RM has a backlog? Andrewa (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I hadn't noticed the time delay between Schwede's proposal and our discussion. He is usually quite an active editor so it might pay to raise it with him directly on his talk page.
 * In my experience, if a discussion needs more opinions due to a lack of participation, or a lack of consensus, then the constructive thing to do is to raise it on a relevant project page - I have put a note of the WP:NZ page for you.
 * As for your views on my comments; thank you, I am aware of the relevant policies and I am sorry that I didn't expand on them and directly relate them back to WP:AT. Mattlore (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You said If the official sources are listing her as Jo then we should too. It's hard to see how that is supported by the current policy or guidelines. This is something of a hobbyhorse of mine I admit, I was the original author of WP:official names just to clarify that particular issue in the hope of reducing the time that was spent on explaining the policy here at WP:RM. The problem is that, had I allowed this to go unchallenged, others reading it could have validly assumed that there was some basis for this claim in policy and guidelines. It's a common enough misconception as is without that support. So this long-winded discussion is I hope a case of a stitch in time, but we will never know. Andrewa (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not see any point moving the article so long as there is a redirect from Jo Hayes to Joanne Hayes and therefore anyone wanting to find the article about her can do so from either perspective. If the article is moved then all you would end up with is the redirect around the other way. Why bother? NealeFamily (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * From COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: 'COMMONNAME'." That's why.  Schwede 66  04:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Well said. Andrewa (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2014 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jo Hayes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140202104856/http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=42772 to http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=42772

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)