Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table

Purpose of this subpage
This purpose of this subpage of Talk:Sarah Jane Brown is to propose, edit and revise an approach to present editors with a list of title choices for this article, and a system to identify the community's top choice. Several approaches in Draft form are presented below. Your input/suggestions are encouraged and appreciated. Ultimately I'll post a new RM using this approach on the Talk page. --В²C ☎ 01:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(DRAFT) Requested move XX February 2018 (DRAFT)
Sarah Jane Brown → TBD – The obvious and ideal title for this subject, Sarah Brown, is ambiguous, so we're supposed to disambiguate. The current title 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 While the last RM (above, withdrawn) established there is consensus to change this title, it's unclear which alternative the community prefers.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, I've constructed a table below with all of the suggestions made above that will hopefully allow us to make this determination. В²C ☎ 19:05, XX February 2018 (UTC)

Special RM Instructions:
 * 1) Normal comments go in  section, perhaps explaining why you prefer your Number 1 pick.
 * 2) Express your preferences in the table below at

Discussion
Normal discussion goes here, perhaps explaining why

(DRAFT) Enter your preferences here (DRAFT)

 * 1) One row per editor.
 * 2) Add a row by copying an Example line and the line below it
 * 3) Replace each Example entry with OK, Preferred or NO in each column corresponding to what you think of the choice in the corresponding heading column.
 * 4) Only one "Preferred" choice per row (2 points)
 * 5) OKs and NOs (1 point and -1 point respectively) are unlimited.
 * 6) Your signature --~ goes in the last column of your row.
 * 7) Be sure and leave at least one Example row at the bottom for the next person.

NOTE: This is just a DRAFT for discussion/suggestions, for now. Feel free to experiment with it, however.

Everybody score every serious suggestion, then discuss

 * 1. KISS.  Tables are too complicated, they create barriers to normal people participating.
 * 2. Scoring is a simple, widely understood method for registering you opinion that is independent of clones and irrelevant alternatives.  Use it see what has broad support (many score it well) and what is contentious (widely separated scores)
 * 3. Using no maths, discuss leading suggestions.

To keep things manageable, I think it is a good idea to classiy similar ideas. There are a large number of serious suggestions on record. We should collect them together, sort them in an easy way to think of them, and let people !vote by scoring. I suggest a mark out of ten, as that works for me. However, others may prefer words. The excercise is most valuable for the !voter to systematically consider everyone else’s ideas, not just their favourite. After that, it is nice for others to be able to follow someone else’s preferences. The thing to avoid is having an entire suite of options having been ignored due to the air being taken up by an argument over one particular option. Encourage a comment to explain every score, or approval/disapproval.

After several people have done this, it should be obvious which options are the serious contendered. Near clones should coalesce, irrelevant options become clear as irrelevant and then no one talks of them again. At this point, new people need not be asked to score the entire suite, although they may if they wish.

No mathematics or arithmetic is to be done. The scoring is for mutual educational purposes to enable a sensible conversation. NOTAVOTE is important. Adding of peoples scores invites vote stacking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorting: The current Sarah Jane Brown should come first. After the first, it should be obvious which are thought to be better, or worse, than the current.

I suggest grouping first the non-parenthetical options. SJB (current); SB; SM; SMB; SJMB. (These are 1a through 1e.) After that, day, parenthetical occupation/activities disambiguations (Options 2a, 2b etc). After that, wife/spouse options. After that, birth year disambiguations. After that, previous name disambiguations. I’m away from a PC, so it is difficult to actually lay it out right now. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternative approach 1

 * 1) One row per editor.
 * 2) Add a row by copying a 0 line and the |- line below it
 * 3) Replace five of the 0 entries in your row with a numeric value in each column corresponding to what you think of the choice in the corresponding heading column.
 * 4) * Assign the five numeric values to the five titles you feel most strongly about, positive or negatively. Use values of 3, 2, 1, -1 and -2, one of each.
 * 5) Your signature --~ goes in the last column of your row (in place of the "Sign").
 * 6) Be sure and leave at least one 0/Sign row at the bottom for the next person.

Alternative approach 2

 * 1) One row per editor.
 * 2) Add a row by copying a 0 line and the |- line below it
 * 3) Replace some of the 0 numeric values in each column corresponding to what you think of the choice in the corresponding heading column.
 * 4) The numbers you use need to add up to no more than 10
 * 5) No entry can be given a number higher than 4
 * 6) Your signature --~ goes in the last column of your row (in place of the "Sign").
 * 7) Be sure and leave at least one 0/Sign row at the bottom for the next person.

Alternative approach 3

 * 1) Place only your signature --~ under each proposed article title which you consider to be acceptable.
 * 2) It is important that you vote honestly and mark ALL options which are acceptable to you.
 * 3) Any other comments you leave here along with your signature may be removed. Please use the discussion area to express your rationale.
 * 4) At the end of the voting period, the option that has the most acceptable votes will be implemented.


 * Sarah Brown (education campaigner)
 * Netoholic @ 21:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)


 * Sarah Brown (campaigner)


 * Sarah Brown (born 1963)


 * Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
 * Netoholic @ 21:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown)


 * Sarah Jane Brown


 * Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)


 * Sarah Brown
 * Netoholic @ 21:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion area
 * This method uses approval voting (the same method used for Wikimedia elections. -- Netoholic @ 21:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of DRAFT Comments/Suggestions
Maybe this does not provide enough granularity to determine a most preferred among the OKs?

Should we give 1-10 ratings for each? Seems complicated. Thoughts? --В²C ☎ 23:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a row under 's showing how it might look if each editor could allocate 3, 2 or 1 points. Should there be a -1 as well? Okay, I'll add that to the example. --В²C ☎ 23:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the second approach a separate table. --В²C ☎ 00:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So the instructions in the Alternative 1 are probably too complicated - you're only supposed to select five, and leave the others 0.  changed them all (mostly to 1s), and did not choose a -1.  Hmm.  How else to do this?    How about: you get a total of 10 points you can allocate any way you want, except no more than 4 points per each choice? So you can do 4, 2, 2, 2 or 1, 2, 3, 4 or 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 etc.  Thoughts? --В²C ☎
 * Okay, I added Alternative 2 which allows you to allocate 10 points any way you want, but no more than 4 for any one choice. --В²C ☎ 00:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a plain Sarah Brown (primary topic) choice to the Alternative 2 table to see how it looks (per suggestion from . --В²C ☎ 00:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I think Alternative 2 is simpler, but it doesn't have the option to explicitly give a NO or negative value to choices you think are unacceptable. Is that a problem? --В²C ☎ 00:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the first option: words not numbers. The RfC closer won't be doing math anyway. --GRuban (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The tables are terrible because they discourage comments, and make it very hard for someone to add another option. The original drafter of the question should not have an ability to choose what people get to consider.  As presented, they beg for addition of numbers, which is the wrong way to go.  Options by column is too limiting, it should be options by row.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Numbers or yes/no in a table seem a very bad idea – it essentially reduces it to a straight count, just as if every !vote in a discussion was support or oppose and the closer simply tallied the totals of each. But that is entirely the wrong way to run a discussion: see the guidelines for any of the discussion processes. It assumes those are the only options, which is clearly wrong – just look at the archives for more. All in all a terrible way to do it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 09:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)