Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 7

Requested move #10

 * 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: Immediately removed on 24 October 2014 (UTC) by an editor that said its submission was disruptive. (Later restored and simultaneously closed, so that it will be more accessible for historical purposes.) —BarrelProof (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Brown → TBD – The current title, Sarah Jane Brown seems natural. Jane was her middle name before she married Gordon Brown, when her name was "Sarah Jane Macaulay"). However, she is not referred to, in any reliable source, by herself or by anyone else, as "Sarah Jane Brown".  This is a policy conflict because WP:NATURAL says to "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" (which is reasonable).   This name clearly does not meet that criteria. More here.   This title has been controversial for 7 years. Let's try something different try to find a title that is acceptable to a consensus.
 * Categorize from the 11 choices below per the example given.
 * Put every choice in one category (to not miss any, copy/paste the example below and rearrange choices per your considerations).
 * Be judicious about what you put in the Unacceptable category; it should be unacceptable for good reason.  The closing admin will determine if we have finally achieved consensus about this title, and a high Acceptable percentage for at least one title is likely to be needed to accomplish this.
 * Within each category order by preference, most acceptable first.
 * Explain your categorization and ordering.

CLOSING ADMIN: Please identify one clear most acceptable/least unacceptable choice if possible, and move to (or retain) that title. If it's too close to call between two, please consider moving to (or retaining) the title that appears the most acceptable choice and suggesting a new "run-off RM" between the top two choices. В²C ☎ 16:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Example:

Poll

 * Acceptable/preferred: SBsopm, SBsoGB; Acceptable: SBnM, SBb63, SBhaea, SBcc, SBBc, SBc, Unacceptable:  SBwoGB, SB, SJB. Reasoning: Only those that contradict policy (SB and SJB), and "wife of" (SBwoGB), are Unacceptable.  The least acceptable among the acceptable have vague and misleading disambiguators (SBhaea, SBcc, SBBc, SBc).  The other acceptable ones (SBnM, SBb63) are not misleading or vague, but are not preferred because they don't reflect why the subject is notable.  The preferred ones are those that reflect why she is notable.  If "Denis Thatcher" was ambiguous, I would support  Denis Thatcher (spouse of prime minister) as the title in that case. --В²C ☎ 16:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * 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.

Propose moratorium on pagemove discussion
I have been following this page for some time. It is apparent to me that there may be no ideal disambiguated name for this article and that the existing one, while not ideal, is acceptable. It is also apparent that an excessive amount of time and energy is being expended on RM discussions, which are unlikely to result in a consensus for change and therefore serve little purpose. I therefore propose that the article be kept at its current location and that a moratorium be placed on any further RM discussions for a minimum of six months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose because User:Born2cycle/FAQ. In addition:  Oh, please.   A number of us have been preparing for a (hopefully final) RM for over week, designed especially to determine whether more acceptable (but not ideal) title can be agreed upon.  But if you've been following this page as you say you have, then you know that.  --В²C ☎ 23:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm literally copying and pasting this from the above discussion, but: Seems unnecessary. This is certainly the most thorough and pre-planned of the RMs we've had on this page, and will probably have the most conclusive answer (as long as half the votes aren't just "speedy close, this has happened before". After this one your plan might be logical though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I explained here why I think this giant, 10 option RM will provide a much less conclusive answer than a regular RM would. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. Good luck to anyone trying to find consensus in a 4-3-3-2-2-2-2-1-1-1 move request. Dekimasu よ! 03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As much as I agree, we may as well let B2C have his fun. This proposal may warrant resurrection as a possible solution if this does not turn out the way he wants and he refused to drop the stick, however. Resolute 23:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I have not gone forward with the RM proposal yet is because several of us are still working out the details of what the table should say. It's important there is general agreement that PROs and CONs are reasonable and fair.  But we're close, I think.   --В²C ☎ 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - There is something wrong here that people would devote this much time and effort to move a page from a persons full name, and argue incessantly that it's not because there is no proof. Something very wrong. If there is no moratorium, then perhaps there needs to be another remedy. This Talk page is beyond absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This title has been controversial for over seven years. Isn't it worth devoting a week or so to finally resolve it?  Sometimes that's what it takes.  That's what it took at Yogurt, Taiwan, and a number of other controversial titles.  --В²C ☎ 01:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - It has come down to a weirdly-unique set of circumstances that the current article title is simply the best of a handful of not-100% ideal choices, so let's just accept it and move on. It doesn't even matter if a horde of Neanderthals flooded the discussion and we wound up with a numerical preference for one of the equally Neanderthal-ish "wife/spouse of..." choices.  I believe there are enough competent admins now that would squash such a thing on WP:BLP grounds.  So, everyone, find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If there were an ideal name, it would have been used a long time ago. It's fine for people to debate forever on other websites, but such activity at Wikipedia is a huge time sink for other editors who believe the current name is the best available, and who do not want to be forced to repeat every argument indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support a moratorium counting from User:Dekimasu's close of 21:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC). Two months (to 12 December 2014) if it is read as a no consensus close, or six months (to 12 April 2015) if Dekimasu meant that there was a consensus that there is no consensus for a move.  There are no new arguments since the last close.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to move the page. In my opinion, it is clear that any new move proposal now will fail to gain a consensus. I don't think it's my place to make that a rider on the close of a requested move, and I respect many of the editors attempting to work things through here, but at some point we have to try to avoid making this a war of attrition. Dekimasu よ! 03:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Maybe a six-month cooling-off period will convince some people to drop the stick. --Carnildo (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. After 9 moves, especially with all the different suggestions brought up in Move 6 (the one that resulted in "Sarah Jane Brown", if there was an alternative that a clear consensus would support, we would have found it by now. That there are so many possible choices on offer in this proposed 10th move request just goes to show that no one, even in this discussion, has any strong feelings on some title that they believe would meet with approval – all the strong feelings are against various titles. The main reason for the move away from the current title is that it is said to have a problem with it that the general consensus in the above conversation (or at least my impression of it) does not appear to consider a problem. (Certainly, if we were looking for an explicit consensus that it was a problem, we don't have that up there.)
 * I also think that the proposed RM would have the opposite of the intended effect of providing a conclusive answer. (I explained why in detail further above in the thread, but so no one will have to go searching through all that text up there, here it is.) I still believe that to be the case, and I wrote that before the pre-provided "pros and cons" list for each possible name that will only, as far as I can tell, provide another hook for those unhappy with whatever the outcome of this move would be to claim that we needed yet another move request. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

[See RM record below]
 * Support. Setting up a vote among eleven different choices is not a recipe for success, and separately, the previous RM just closed recently. Omnedon (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hells yes The endless repeating string of votes that start as soon as one is closed is becoming disruptive. A 6-month moratorium is exactly what the article needs.  -- Jayron  32  03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note A new RM request was added a few minutes ago, after the comments above had already been made. I've removed it.  When there is (currently) an 8-3 consensus not to have another requested move discussion, and you create another requested move discussion, that is disruptive.  If another RM is started before this thread is resolved (1 day is probably too early to close this, though the trend is crystal clear), I'll block whoever starts it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This just feels mean. I proposed having this RM over a week ago. Since then I've been openly preparing for it, here on this talk page, with help from others.  See the section above.  It was a TON of work.  Many contributed to formulating the choices and the wording in the hopes of creating a proposal that will help us find a title that is acceptable to a consensus.  I was hoping to launch earlier this week but wanted to make sure the table of choices was acceptable.  It's a new kind of approach.  Maybe it won't work, but I believe it will. Sometimes it takes this kind of effort to develop consensus.   Why not give it a chance?  I already got through half the notification listlist before I noticed you reverted the proposal.  --В²C ☎ 17:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, B2C, I feel it would have been reasonable of you to hold off on the RM until the moratorium issue was resolved. Pushing ahead with it was bound to be seen as disruptive. Omnedon (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is ironic that a blatant attempt to disrupt a genuine effort (that has taken a ton of time and work to prepare) to resolve a 7-year long conflict about this title refers to the disrupted effort as disruption itself. I didn't occur to me that anyone would be take it seriously. My mistake.  Whatever.  I can wait six months or a year and propose it then.  Not sure why that's better.  The idea that so many people think censorship can be a solution is very disappointing.  --В²C ☎ 17:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not being "censored". You're being asked to give it some time, by many people, for good reasons (that you may disagree with). Please do not assume bad faith of editors, but most especially in such a blanket manner. Omnedon (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming bad faith. Suppressing one from making a proposal is censorship, even if it's temporary.  It's disappointing that you don't recognize that, much less that you approve of it.   --В²C ☎ 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not suppress you. I was one of many who, in various ways, asked you not to do this for various reasons. The community seems to be rejecting this RM so closely following the previous one. Now you have agreed to wait 6 months or a year. So what's the problem then? Omnedon (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not agreed to. I've been coerced (by threat of block if I un-revert the RM) to "agree".  That's censorship, and you're supporting it.  --В²C ☎ 18:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are under no obligation to give your approval to this proposed moratorium. You will however be obliged to comply with the result, if there is a clear consensus. There is no 'censorship' involved anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Apparently you didn't even take heed of my last comment; so, not only did you proceed with a move request that pretty much no one but you cares about, you also posted a move request chock full of your own well-poisoning pro/con observations on each choice.  You were just all-around wrong on this and it's really just time to let go. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that comment until now. RM proposals always contain whatever the nominator wants to put in it.  That I chose to allow others to give me input is what's unusual here.  You don't get to say what goes into a proposal others choose to make, or what format it should take. Who do you think you are?   All that matters is whether the proposal succeeds or fails to achieve a consensus, as determined by an uninvolved closing admin.  --В²C ☎ 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who do I think I am? Well, to quote a wiseguy (literally), I'm the one telling you how it is.  You don't get to set up a slanted and biased Move Request and expect everyone will adhere to your slanted, biased POV.  IF we were to hold another rename discussion, it would be a fair and honest one.  You whine about the 11 days of work you put into this, but during those 11 days, several editors pointed out that the BLP-violating choices shouldn't be in there, yet you included em anyways.  Several editors objected to your inclusion of your own personal pro/con lists, yet you included em anyways.  So where are we now?  One admin proposed a 6-month moratorium which is heading towards a consensus approval; you ignored that, started RM #10 anyways, and another admin slammed the door in your face on that.  You lost.  Move on. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. It is clear that there is no title that is going to satisfy everyone. There is nothing inherently objectionable about the current title, and accordingly leaving things as they are for six months will do no harm. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't object to having a well structured new RM as a means of obtaining a best-consensus title, but I also don't object to a cooling-off period following the last process. Six months is not terribly unreasonable under the circumstances. I agree with those who feel that this page is at the wrong title, but I don't think that it is so terribly wrong that it is injurious to keep it here for the time period contemplated. By the way, I seem to recall that during the last "Hillary Rodham Clinton" kerfuffle, we actually had Jimbo ask Hillary's people what her preference was. Although I don't think that we should be premising titles on the preferences of subjects (particularly those who have political calculations in mind), it couldn't hurt to have this data point in this case. In short, shall we ask Mrs. Brown if she has a preference, and (preference aside) if she finds the status quo to be offensive? bd2412  T 17:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support 8 pagemove discussions in the past year? If this is what you think is important on Wikipedia, you're not here to create an encyclopedia. Go write content and we'll come back in another year. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what's important is finding a title that is acceptable to a consensus. Lead, follow or get out of the way.  Supporting censorship is none of the above.  --18:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This talk page, and its history, is one of the most extravagant episodes of missing-the-big-picture I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The reason: while kilobytes after kilobytes of text have been spilled on the insignificant question of the article's title, the article sat here, for years, in an awful state. It was poorly sourced, poorly written and poorly structured. An example of the skewed priorities: a week or so ago, I completely changed the article's long-standin structure in a single edit and without seeking consensus first . That was a much more radical change than a tweak to the title. No-one dissented. No-one had alternative suggestions. No-one cared. It is very interesting to compare how many edits certain people have made to this talk page with how many edits they have made to the article. There is one notable case where the count is 186–1. Seriously. Six months off is an excellent idea. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I noted above that I felt there was no harm in letting this run, even though I can't see anything other than a no-consensus result coming from so many options.  But B2C's increasing combativeness argues that even he could use a six-month break from the topic so he can perhaps regain some perspective. Resolute 19:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per NY Brad comment as nom. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – Absolutely nothing good can come of more move discussions. Nothing is broken, so there is no reason to fix it. Let it be, and stop this inordinate time-wasting. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why postpone?. I help resolve title conflicts.  Titles of articles with long multi-year histories of conflict pique my interest, because I know how to resolve them.  By "resolved" I mean settling on a title to which nobody strongly objects, and people stop proposing it be changed. That's what I do.  For some reason it causes consternation, but it works.  Yogurt, Sega Genesis, Queen Victoria, Las Vegas, etc., are all examples of titles that had a long history of disputes, like this one, but were eventually resolved in a process in which I was heavily involved.   This title is not resolved.  Not yet.  It could get resolved in the next few weeks.  Or we could wait 6 months.  Or a year.  Or two years.  But sooner or later it will get resolved.    With the RM proposal several of us have taken almost 2 weeks to prepare we could get there much sooner than later.  But people prefer later to sooner.  Why is it so important to stop or postpone progress on developing consensus?  --В²C ☎ 21:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Otherwise the "consensus" achieved will just be whoever gets bored last. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's what you really believe about developing consensus through discussion, that's just sad. The vast majority who would participate in an RM would not have to invest much time or effort at all.  Minutes.  --В²C ☎ 21:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as peace is often more important than perfection. Dennis - 2&cent; 22:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the real world, peace is achieved by encouraging diplomacy and discussion. In the upside world of WP, muzzling discussion and proposals is seen as "peace".  Weird. By the way: www.sarahjanebrown.com  --В²C ☎ 23:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care if we named the article Flippitydodah, I'm just tired of the senseless drama. And it is pretty obvious that you don't have a muzzle on.  Dennis - 2&cent; 23:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I filed an RM. It was reverted.  That's what I mean by muzzling.  --В²C ☎ 01:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I may: You filed an RM while it was being debated whether anyone should file an RM. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The plan and development for that RM had been done in the open here on this talk page, and had been progressing for over a week. It was inappropriate to start a discussion about ending something that was already progressing.  Instead of just making an RM proposal, I first sought input to make sure as many concerns were covered as possible in that RM.   I don't know why people need to be so mean and nasty on WP.  --В²C ☎ 01:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per the many sensible comments above. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  23:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per everything above, and the same as the same endless disruption at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. User:Born2cycle, please drop it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Question There has been an ongoing plan and discussion on this talk page about an RM proposal for over a week. The notification list was created and ready to go.  Development about the proposal content was progressing and almost ready to go for the last few days, but a few tweaks were still being discussed and made, so I waiting until this morning to actually formally post it.  Despite that ongoing discussion, another discussion, this discussion, proposing a moratorium on RM proposals here, was started yesterday.  I proceeded with the plan and posted the RM this morning.  It was reverted on the grounds that there was an ongoing discussion about an RM moratorium, despite the fact that this moratorium discussion was started while there was an ongoing RM plan-discussion.  Why is it okay to start a moratorium proposal discussion while there is an ongoing RM proposal discussion, but it's not okay to formerly post the ready RM proposal while there is an ongoing moratorium proposal discussion?  --В²C ☎ 02:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a mischaracterization. Many of the comments following the closure of the previous RM were about how we don't need to discuss it again so quickly. Talking about doing an RM is one thing; but there was not an RM in progress when the discussion of the moratorium started. Whereas, there were a bunch of "supports" on that and it was pretty clear that the general view was in favor of tabling discussion on this for a while, when you went ahead and filed the RM anyway. Two entirely different situations. Omnedon (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you, dear fellow, need to drop the stick and walk away. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You began discussing and proposing ideas for yet another RM discussion.
 * Several questioned the wisdom of this, so they proposed a moratorium on RM discussions.
 * Many voiced support for that, yet you started an RM discussion.
 * That’s my understanding of events, at least. Hope that helps. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Good proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2015

 * 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: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (businesswoman and wife of Gordon Brown) – as per WP:UCRN

In business at "Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications" she was known as Sarah Brown

Women's Aid describe her role in various ways especially as Women's Aid Patron Sarah Brown

Maggie's Centres describe her as [https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:maggiescentres.org+%22sarah+brown%22+OR+%22sarah+jane+brown%22 Sarah Brown. Honorary Patron]

SHINE describe her as Patron Sarah Brown

WHITE RIBBON ALLIANCE describe her as: Global Patron, Sarah Brown

She published as Sarah Brown

I don't know when or how she has been described as Sarah Jane Brown.

As a parallel to Janes, see List of Johns whose Britannica article titles contain broad description

GregKaye 12:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The original submitted RM (after a few iterations of refinement before anyone responded) had a mismatch between the template parameter (suggesting "charity patron") and the text description (suggesting "businesswoman and wife of Gordon Brown". I'm not sure which suggestion was intended, but they should presumably match each other. If the submitter wanted to suggest that both be considered, the text should be altered to reflect that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I knew it was only a matter of time before one of the Clinton RM agitators tried this one again. A consensus of editors settled on using the subject's middle name as a compromise method to disambiguate her from other Sarah Browns.  It was found that disabiguating by profession was too obscure and disambiguating by marital relation too problematic, so "Jane" was the best choice. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can call people with the majority view in a discussion "agitators". Can you please cite references as to where she is called something other than "Sarah Brown".  How does it give any respect to a person to call them by a name that they do not, as far as I can tell, use for themselves?  We have no remit to make things up.  The first two criteria presented in wp:at are recognisability and naturalness and we need to choose titling to suit.  Please, unless you can justify your comment, strike your POV and WP:POINTy comment re: "agitators".  13:37, 9 May 2015 edited GregKaye 16:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question can be found in the last RM, where it was decided that usage of the subject's middle name in sources was not relevant; the fact that it exists was sufficient enough for usage in the title. It was the best of many sub-par choices. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AGAIN, unless you can justify your comment, strike your POV and WP:POINTy comment re: "agitators".
 * What, if anything, do you consider to be "sub-par" in the current proposal. My original proposal here was for: Sarah Brown (charity patron).  What, if anything, would you consider to be "sub-par" in that.  I don't personally think we should risk disrespecting an individual by calling them by a name that, as far as I can see, they have not called themselves.  As per the discussion User talk:Jimbo Wales#Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton move request I guess I can again follow the blatant WP:OR route and ask for clarification to be sought on the subject's preference as to designation.
 * However this seems to me to be ridiculous. In every place she has either presented herself or been presented as "Sarah Brown" I do not think that it is the role of Wikipedia to rewrite history.  GregKaye 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, this is a bad-faith, ill-informed proposal; nothing will be stricken. I have informed you as to why the current title is the product of consensus and compromise, despite the best efforts of one of your comrades born2cycle to derail the last Sarah Brown RM...he was even close to a topic ban by admin JzG IIRC...the choice of Jane as a disambig was supported by most participants. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and this is without a doubt the worst suggested parenthetical disambig ever proposed in Wikipedia's history. Resolute 14:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reso Please consider the results in news.
 * "About 1,740 results" for "Sarah Brown" AND ("Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications" OR "Women's Aid" OR "Maggie's Centres" OR "WHITE RIBBON ALLIANCE" OR "10 Downing Street" OR "Gordon Brown")
 * "1 result" for "Sarah Jane Brown" AND ("Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications" OR "Women's Aid" OR "Maggie's Centres" OR "WHITE RIBBON ALLIANCE" OR "10 Downing Street" OR "Gordon Brown")
 * and, in that result the name could not even be found. What do you think of the Sarah Brown (charity patron) suggestion?  GregKaye 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is time that we stopped wasting time on this. Resolute 15:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article deals with a living person who presents herself and who is widely presented as "Sarah Brown" and who we present as "Sarah jane Brown". GregKaye 07:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No shit? Yes Greg, we are all aware of the circumstances here. And you don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion by responding to literally every comment made by everyone else. If you're that insecure in your argument that you don't think it will stand up on its own, don't make it in the first place. Resolute 13:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Sarah Brown (charity patron). Sarah Jane is a common collocation by itself; its use in the article title incorrectly implies that the subject is commonly known as "Sarah Jane" Brown. bd2412  T 16:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment see search on site:gordonandsarahbrown.com jane. Honestly I don't think we can continue to make shit up.  GregKaye 16:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose That’s a far too complex way to disambiguate this or any other article, while just her role as a business person (or charity patron) is not enough. As it is is by far the best approach, precise without focussing on just one or other of her reasons for notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com "sarah jane" OR "jane brown" gets no results.
 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com "sarah brown" gets to "Page 32 of 312 results" (the site has a total of 410 pages)
 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com patron gets to "Page 2 of 17 results"
 * http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/sarah-brown/ presents the text: "In Publication: In a warm, personal memoir about life at 10 Downing Street, Sarah Brown shares her experiences as the wife of the British Prime Minister."
 * GregKaye 17:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OpposeOnly those proposing the disambiguation will remember it, no one will ever search for the article using that mouthful, and anyone who does would know the topic well enough to find it anyway.--KTo288 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * KTo288 people will search for "Sarah Brown" as her name, the regular name that she continually uses, the kind of thing that is referred to within WP:AT where it says: "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 the name she uses.  Why are we denying her her name?  GregKaye 18:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The tag at https://twitter.com/sarahbrownuk reads: "Sarah Brown@SarahBrownUK" and makes no reference to "jane"

https://www.facebook.com/gordonandsarahbrown makes no reference to "jane"

Its no wonder people say Wikipedia is inaccurate. GregKaye 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing the overwordy and ugly appelation of (businesswoman and wife of Gordon Brown), if the arguments were for plain Sarah Brown that would be annother matter, but because there are other individuals of thge samename that move cannot be made. The problem in this case is that the individual is best known as the spouse of Gordon Bown but disambiguating in this way to many, myself included, is sexist. We are not a newspaper or magazine, when reading articles in such there is no need to disambiguate amongst the many possible individuals it could be, in this example a compromise has been made that in my opinion works well at balancing correctness and uniqueness without being ugly. The suggested move title is another set of compromises and choices, you gain having the name at Sarah Brown at the cost of a complex, wordy, somewhat sexist and ugly disambiguation in the title. Are there other choices and compromises that can or could be made sure there are. For example at korean wiki one common way to disambiguate between people with the same name is to just use the year of birth e.g. Sarah Brown (1963), and to place all the disambiguating information into the disambiguation page, however other than for Royal Navy ships its not how we normally disambiguate here at en, so for me the current compromise seems to be the best one. --KTo288 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * KTo288 I am aware of the point and for on similar grounds of recognition of the person I was one of the strongest advocates of the proposal Pontius Pilate's wife → Wife of Pontius Pilate. Gordon Brown was arguably an ugly man but yet a statesman.  Sarah Brown came to prominence as the spouse of Gordon and since his acceptance speech from about four elections ago, it was clear that he was a contender.  There is nothing ugly in the appellation.  Foremost she it describes her as a business woman.
 * as far as overwordy is concerned please see, for example, the Britannica article for:
 * Sarah Winnemucca (Native American educator, author and lecturer)
 * I personally see no problem in full description. GregKaye 20:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that every utterance of the "source X makes no reference to Jane" is not a valid argument, yes? See the past RM for why. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realise that Wikipedia has a policy to use names as they are used in the real world, yes? See WP:AT for why.  GregKaye 20:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is a pillar of the project, which when justified, trumps policy. This exception was endorsed in a previous RM, thus is the bar you have to meet here; so far, your efforts are underwhelming. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you acknowledge the relevance of IAR. GregKaye 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and recommend a speedy "snow" closure. This move is patently not going to happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly a very poor use of a disambiguator to make a very long title, when we have a very short title already. Further, this page's name and disambiguator has been discussed a multitude of times with better choices than this. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Close and resubmit for Sarah Brown (charity patron) subject is known as "wife of Gordon Brown" not "Sarah Jane" Brown but we cannot refer to someone notable for being a wife of someone as (wife of...) it's shameful. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and a 2 year moratorium on another discussion. Rationale: Good grief. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam the rationale is that "Sarah Brown" is consistently presented and consistently presents herself as "Sarah Brown". Three editors have proposed Sarah Brown (charity patron) and you instantly want a moratorium.  How does your suggestion in any way meet the needs of an encyclopedia?  "good grief" indeed.  GregKaye 04:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The ball's in her court really. She can start making more use of her middle name or she can do something more noteworthy than being married to a former Prime Minister. If she wants to drag her feet about it, that's up to her, but I don't see why we should let it be our problem. Formerip (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Formerip she is notable as being "Sarah Brown". Why are you denying her of her name?  This is not how she or reliable source uses it.  GregKaye 04:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying anyone anything. If you think it would stand any sort of chance, propose a move to "Sarah Brown", and I'll promise to stay out of it. Formerip (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At the least Sarah Brown (politician) is very notable as a transgender activist. GregKaye 07:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose move and support indef of OP per WP:CIR. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment when you type something like "Sarah Bro" into the search bar the options received are:
 * Sarah Brown
 * Sarah Brown (athlete)
 * Sarah Brownson
 * Sarah Brown (politician)
 * Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)
 * Sarah Brown (actress)
 * Sarah Brosnan
 * Sarah Brown Ingersoll Cooper
 * Sarah Broom Macnaughtan
 * Sarah Brown (artists' model)
 * according to your perception not giving recognition to the the "First Lady" role of Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, how is it in any way respectful to leave the situation as it is?? 05:01, 10 May 2015 edited GregKaye 14:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What has changed since the last RM that necessitates reopening the matter? Tarc (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actual consideration of content that has actually been presented by the subject is arguably of great importance. Beyond failing to acknowledging a major achievement in fulfilling a first lady type role, no one has really given much attention to the things that the subject has actually said.  Also, as you know, the previous RM was far from unanimous.  Relevant content that I have presented and which has been censored against talk page guidelines below is as follows:


 * Even with less acknowledgement of the partnership role in marriage Wikipedia presents articles such as Justin Cooper (aide). Is that derogatory?  There is nothing wrong with presenting someone as .. (significant other of important person) so as, amongst other achievements, acknowledge contributions made here as well.  GregKaye 07:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is silly. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is imperfect, but an enormous amount of careful attention and discussion in previous debates has led to the conclusion that the alternatives are even more so.  (The length, clunky, "wife of" form that the nominator proposes is particularly poor.)  To discard the compromise that gave us the current title and restart the process again would be a colossal waste, and to judge from responses so far is going absolutely nowhere.  Suggest closing this proposal due to heavy WP:SNOW.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  19:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to close the discussion also trying to open a discussion to see if a suitable alternative could be agreed with the accompanying suggestion that someone get in contact with Sarah Brown to see if she has a preference with regard to designation. GregKaye 00:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't ask subjects of biographies about their preferences, and this discussion is not needed given the previous one. This discussion should be closed without delay per WP:SNOW. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  01:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with the close of the discussion which was something I tried to do. A major case presented in the Hillary Clinton RMs related to a personal contact with the subject.  GregKaye 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Clinton and Brown cases aren't really equivalent: the Clinton debate deals with the wide-spread use of differing forms of her name outside of Wikipedia, whereas the Brown debate centers more on an internal technical problem inside Wikipedia (i.e., how do we title Sarah Brown's article given that we have multiple Sarah Brown articles?). That's why Clinton's input was useful to that problem but why Brown's would probably be a lot less so to this one.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  17:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose w/ 2 year moratorium on future RMs. Per Huwmanbeing & earlier discussions.  For what it's worth, since she is not a notable businesswoman (if that's all she was notable for, the article would be deleted) and "wife of" is suboptimal, the only alternate title worth a darn is Sarah Brown (born 1963), since year disambiguator is a well-known last resort that's perfectly neutral (if rather unhelpful).  SnowFire (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine! Use that.  She is not commonly known as "Sarah Jane Brown".  Please do not go against all that she says about herself and that is inclusive of a great deal of the censored content in the collapsed box below.  GregKaye 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I still prefer "Sarah Jane Brown", just "born 1963" isn't an automatic no for a disambiguator and I'd be much less opposed to it. And yes, I and most of the other opposers do so with the full knowledge that she goes by "Sarah Brown" not by "Sarah Jane Brown." SnowFire (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"This proposal asks two questions: Should the page be moved? If so, what is your preferred title? [List of options]." ╠╣uw [ talk ] 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Sarah Brown (born 1963) The current title is utterly obscure and not the name by which the subject is know at all. It should be properly disambiguated and this seems the only one that doesn't bring objections. It would hardly be the first by year disambiguation. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral I support changing this title, which clearly does not have consensus support for reasons explained above, but not to the proposed title, which is too obviously contrived. I think we need to have a multiple-choice RM for this difficult case. --В²C ☎ 23:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC) See below. --В²C ☎ 16:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I am on record as supporting Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) (as more recognizable, contains the "Macauley" by which she was for some time primarily known, sources have used all three names frequently used to identify her, does not imply subservience to a husband), but the burden of any nomination is to overturn the consensus of RM6 (Links from the talk page header: Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_2, endorsed at Move_review/Log/2013_June. Any new nomination should speak directly to the points raised in previous RMs, especially RM6 and it's review.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Coming out more strongly in support of Sarah Brown (née Macaulay). The subject has been known as "Sarah Brown" and "Sarah Macaulay".  No source, nor herself, uses Sarah Macaulay Brown, and so the Macaulay belongs in parentheses.  The word "née" is quite acceptable in English and occurs in many Wikipedia titles.  Sarah Brown, née Macaulay is a style sometimes seen elsewhere, but not much at Wikipedia.  In all of the past RMs, Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) has received very little attention, with so much noise directed against certain other suggestions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On reading all the archives, I see that Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) has been frequently mentioned suggested and supported. Very few spoke against it, and the few instances of argument are readily disputable.  This title has actually been used by a reputable source here.  What there was not a consensus for was that the current Sarah Jane Brown in unacceptable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and extend moratorium. --Carnildo (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support proposed title as better than the the current misleading title, but first choice is Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) per, primarily per recognizable. Second choice is probably Sarah Brown (born 1963).  One problem with the current title, and why it needs to change, is because using Jane as the disambiguator is so unrecognizable (based on usage) that it could be misconstrued to be there to disambiguate for this Sarah Brown!  It's like using Hillary Diane Clinton, Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi, Elizabeth Ann Ford or Nancy Frances Reagan for titles.  These are far less recognizable than the actual titles. The proposed title is long, clumsy and contrived, but at least it's not wrong or misleading. It's a step in the right direction, and that's why I decided to support it. I still think we need a multiple-choice RFC. I oppose all discussion moratoriums on principle. --В²C ☎ 16:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your second choice, note that it had its run at RM #3. Re-reading that discussion, it kind of puts a wet blanket on any hope of enthusiasm for that title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My word, deja vu all over again! If we are still thinking of moving this page (*if*) then jumping straight to a vote is the wrong approach.  As I said over a year ago, what we need is a proper discussion of the pros and cons of this page title and the various possible alternatives; it would even be helpful if someone could compile an impartial summary of the debate to date. Let me repeat what I said at over a year ago: "Sarah Jane Brown is her actual name, although not her "common name", but in the absence of consensus for a parenthetical descriptor, her own middle name provides a natural disambiguator. That said, it is not well recognised or used outside Wikipedia, and the reader could be forgiven for thinking her preferred forename was "Sarah Jane". ... Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) is a good alternative, and on reflection I think that is a probably a better solution here. (If we object to the French, we could say Sarah Brown (born Macaulay) or Sarah Brown (formerly Macaulay)."  On further reflection, Sarah Brown (born 1963) could also work, and I'd marginally prefer that to the current title, although few people know her date of birth or her middle name.  There does seem to be evidence that she is frequently linked to her former (pre-marriage) surname, and with Hobsbawm Macaulay, so I'd prefer one of the various "former name" titles.  Perhaps we can just close this misguided move request now, and have the discussion on the alternatives in a less time-pressured manner?  I have no doubt that we can identify several least-worst contenders in short order, and then choose between them.  That said, Sarah Brown (businesswoman and wife of Gordon Brown) is one of the worst suggestions I have seen.  Ferma (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In my experience unless there is an active proposal which can change something you will get very low participation. Therefore I believe the best course of action is an RM formulated as a survey with multiple options where people opine on their, say, top three choices, and why. From that we should be able to discern a best choice. Perhaps this current RM can be closed per SNOW while and those interested can compile such a survey? --В²C ☎ 18:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're describing the very RM that led to Sarah Jane Brown in the first place:
 * That was the right idea. We need to give it another shot incorporating a lot of the pros and cons that have been identified for each of the candidate titles since then, and include some that were not considered there. --В²C ☎ 20:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

There may be no ideal title for this article but I cannot see that "Sarah Jane Brown" is it.


 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com "sarah jane" OR "jane brown" gets no results.
 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com "sarah brown" gets to "Page 32 of 312 results" (the site has a total of 410 pages)
 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com patron gets to "Page 2 of 17 results"
 * http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/sarah-brown/ presents the text: "In Publication: In a warm, personal memoir about life at 10 Downing Street, Sarah Brown shares her experiences as the wife of the British Prime Minister."

In connection to business at "Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications" she is referenced either as Sarah Macaulay or as Sarah Brown

Women's Aid describe her role in various ways especially as Women's Aid Patron Sarah Brown

Maggie's Centres describe her as [https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:maggiescentres.org+%22sarah+brown%22+OR+%22sarah+jane+brown%22 Sarah Brown. Honorary Patron]

SHINE describe her as Patron Sarah Brown

WHITE RIBBON ALLIANCE describe her as: Global Patron, Sarah Brown

She published as Sarah Brown

I don't know when or how she has been described as Sarah Jane Brown.

The tag at https://twitter.com/sarahbrownuk reads: "Sarah Brown@SarahBrownUK" and makes no reference to "jane"

https://www.facebook.com/gordonandsarahbrown makes no reference to "jane"

Early excerpts from : Behind the Black Door by: "Sarah Jane Brown" inclusive of "wife", "husband" and "Spouse" are:
 * Preface
 * In writing this book, I hope to cast a light on the role of Prime Minister's spouse and all that it entails. As the wife of Gordon Brown, I spent three years living and working at Number 10 Downing Street. ...
 * I was advised before starting at Number 10 that there is no guidebook for what to do, only a big rulebook of what not to do. The 'not to' bit seemed to be just commonsense, but the blank page or what a PM's spouse can do, and perhaps even should do was a welcome opportunity to start from scratch. There is no formal spouse job to step into, no permanent office, no salary, no allowance, no pre-set duties or official role, not even an official title, but I have ten years' experience in hosting receptions and dinners as first the girlfriend, then the wife, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand me in good stead.
 * ... I supported Gordon and the kids and focussed completely on the causes and campaigns closest to my heart... page ix


 * I ... cannot predict how different life will be moving from number 11, Downing Street, as wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to Number 10, as wife of the Prime Minister. page 2
 * ... in all my years as wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ... page 9
 * I'm starting to understand why being WPM (Wife of the Prime Minister - I think that Dennis Thatcher forged his own path as the one male exception so far) feels so tricky. I have no exact status, no official position, masses of conflicting expectations both internally and externally, and a terrible suspicion that at any moment a great mistake will be made by ME!
 * Over the last few weeks, during Gordon's leadership campaigning time, it was clear that he would arrive with the support of pretty much all the Labour MPs, and so I turned my attention to what I would do once he was made leader. I see my role as supportive, of course; for government events, both professionally and personally, as my husband takes on an even bigger job than the one he had before. I also see - and I look to all my predecessors for this - that there is an opportunity to ues the visibility, platform and privilege of being at 10 Downing Street to use my efforts to do something useful and good. I don't waht to over-complicate things, but I am very clear that I can have a voice for  change if I don't step on any policy-making toes.  I have to get the balance right between not being an elected politician myself, while making good use of my own abilities and professional experience.  I know that whatever happens, a watchful media will report on my successes, or otherwise.  It is not without a degree of personal stress that I recognise that failure on my part will make a good news story, but I am an 'eyes forward' kind of girl and prepared to take the risk. page 15

Please consider that all of this information came direcly from the subject herself.

As far as I am concerned "Sarah Brown" is clearly a self-possessed person in her own right who has served my country both in her roles including as wife / spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and in the other functions that she performed which arguably made best use of this connection. She clearly played a substantial role in her husband in gaining various political positions and has, from what I have seen, done a great job of making the best of her various situations first as "Sarah Macaulay" and then as "Sarah Brown".

In its article: Wife is defined as : "a female partner in a continuing marital relationship."

I suspect that that if "partner" had been directly used as the operative reference that there would have been little or no controversy. I further think that it is fair to argue that there is every reason to believe that the Brown's very strongly scribe to the philosophy of partnership even to the extent of presenting the joint website and facebook pages as:
 * http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/ and
 * https://www.facebook.com/gordonandsarahbrown

Since, in my view, editors here are giving little heed to the concepts of WP:AT I think that a similar to that of Hillary Diane Rodham/Hillary Clinton/Hillary Rodham Clinton might apply. In this I would suggest that there is a case for asking "Sarah Brown"/"Sarah Jane Brown" how she would like to have her Wikipedia article presented and suggest that someone, ideally neutral to the main arguments of related discussions, get in contact with "Sarah Brown" perhaps by twitter or via any related charity, or the Browns by some other means.

I also see no reason why we cannot use a Sarah Brown (foo and bar) designation has been the case with the previously mentioned Britannica designation of Sarah Winnemucca (Native American educator, author and lecturer)

A listing of potential designations has been provided at: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 7.

Pinging previous contributors to this talk page in case of comment: 124.169.35.195 131.111.185.66 65.94.171.225 70.36.142.114 84.92.117.93 86.137.46.209 2600:1001:B027:532D:40C:A8D1:197C:58D9 ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , GregKaye 09:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pings only work under certain conditions, one of which is that there are not more than 20 names (that is, the above pings did not work). Also, it is not possible to ping an IP. There is a yawning gap between what is written above and reality. With some study, it may be possible to find a correct assertion in there somewhere, but why are you still going on about this? The fact that we disagree about a name can be seen as a welcome sign of diversity, but it is disturbing that you cannot see that continuing this discussion after what happened earlier is highly disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, stop. Withdrawing your RM move nomination means you no longer think it is necessary. Withdrawing to make another proposal and reset the clock is just disruptive. Editors can consider that proposal within that discussion. You don't get to restart the discussion because you don't like the way it is going.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And I have accordingly hatted this and re-opened the 9 May discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is nothing new in the nominators analysis, and no new solution presented. RM mongering is disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe It would be helpful if you could point to places in previous discussion in which direct quotations from the subject have previously been presented. I know that a 05:13, 12 June 2013 edit was made in the original Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → ? discussion that made reference to the book that was published under the authorship of "Sarah Brown" but I do not see where actual content is presented.  To me the above collapse looks like censorship of content that editors, for whatever reason, do not want to be presented for consideration.  GregKaye 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye, your insistence on responding to pretty much everyone who comments is disrupting the discussion. It also suggests that you have become overly fixated on this naming issue, which is of limited importance, and could use a break from thinking about it. I suggest that you step away from this page for at least a few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any reliable source for the subject's preference, given that "Sarah Brown" is not available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah Brown self presents as Sarah Brown and, yes, I personally think that it is unencyclopedic to describe her as "Sarah Jane Brown". I have presented content that directly presents what that subject herself says and that has been collapsed.  If other editors have valid arguments against the things that I am saying then let them present them.  Please see: What Wikipedia is not.  There is nothing that I have said that is not reasonable.  I have responded to 4 of the 10 comments.
 * There is nothing wrong with presenting here what the subject says herself. Of course "Sarah Brown" is available via the simple application of any form of suitable disambiguation. GregKaye 01:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye, what is unreasonable is your monomaniacal obsession with this naming discussion, and if it persists, I'm going to go to a noticeboard and suggest that you be removed from the page. 01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there is nothing specific that you are saying is unreasonable yet the above content, quotations from the subject, has been collapsed. I tried to withdraw the RM.  GregKaye 01:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye, you are merely persisting with a line of argument already covered in previous RMs. The community effectively decided that any of the various awkward parenthetical disambiguations are not better than including the middle name "Jane".  In the above thread, you proposed a particularly poor version of an awkward parenthetical disambiguation, one that includes with widely and strongly rejected "wife of" element.  I am feeling very sure that you are not seeing anything more clearly than anyone previously, and urge you to drop this.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please, I was quite happy to take a back step. I withdrew the RM and began I hoped an open discussion to see if an option could be found that worked on the commonly used base of "Sarah Brown". Two editors have supported such an option.  I have also, I think, fairly stated.
 * "Since, in my view, editors here are giving little heed to the concepts of WP:AT I think that a similar to that of Hillary Diane Rodham/Hillary Clinton/Hillary Rodham Clinton might apply. In this I would suggest that there is a case for asking "Sarah Brown"/"Sarah Jane Brown" how she would like to have her Wikipedia article presented and suggest that someone, ideally neutral to the main arguments of related discussions, get in contact with "Sarah Brown" perhaps by twitter or via any related charity, or the Browns by some other means."
 * I would be happy for this to be followed but the content presenting this suggestion has been collapsed. GregKaye 02:06, 11 May 2015 (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.

Sarah Brown (Q2986943)
My advice to people wanting the title to be "Sarah Brown" with some form of disambiguation after the name is to be patient and wait, it may be possible for you to have "Sarah Brown" with no disambiguation in the title. Wikidata, which has now taken over the vast majority of links between wikis, has no need of disambiguation in the title, rather every item- and for us this means articles- is given a unique identity number. That number turns up on the wikidata page, but in use it does not appear nor does one need to remember it, when searching on wikidata the description of each item appears below, so searchers can find the article they are looking for, and this description can be as long as needed to distinguish the item. (Click on the edit links side bar on this article and see for yourself).

So why do I mention this here, its because it must not be beyond a sysyem which works within wikidata and between multiple wikimedia language and sister projects to work within a project; applying what wikidata does to interwiki links to en Wikipedia intra-wiki links. So rather than spending all your energy rehashing the same arguments here and getting angry and fustrated, may I suggest spending a fraction of that time and ingenuity in petitioning the devs at Mediawiki to bring searching by item number to Wikipedia.--KTo288 (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)