Talk:Susan Nye, Baroness Nye

Current civil service office?
Is Nye still the civil service "Director of Government Relations"? With the change in government to Tory, wouldn't it be ackward for Nye to continue in that post, given her close association with former Labour PM Brown?--TGC55 (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
not moved. Well known by personal name and the exception in WP:NCPEER seems quite clear about then using the personal name. --rgpk (comment) 17:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sue Nye → Sue Nye, Baroness Nye.


 * Oppose - Known for Controversy surrounding the Gordon Brown "bigot" remarks and for being his director of communications and not for baing a peer. Also disambiguation is not required for this article title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This peeress is virtually unknown and is no longer wholly or exclusively known by her pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Sue Nye, Baroness Nye per WP:NCPEER. Not well-known before entering the House of Lords. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - seems fair enough, she was not well known before going to the Lord's (although there was a stub article dating from 2008). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Former political advisers who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 4 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) 17:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can we plase have a reason and not just a vote. As this is meant to be a discsussion and not a poll.--Lucy-marie (talk)

B2C is quite entitled to his views, but per WP:MULTI discussion on changes to a naming convention should be centralised, so that the same issues are nor argued out in multiple places. Centralising discussion saves editors wasting their energies by repeating the same arguments on multiple pages, and leads to for better decisions by ensuring that all the arguments are centralised in one place. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Well done finding someone who hasn't spotted your war-of-attrition tactics ... but WP:MULTI does apply. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support by arguments from Amakuru and BHG. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose.  Following a specific guideline like WP:NCPEER merely for the sake of following that guideline, even when it indicates a title contrary to fundamental naming principles at WP:TITLE, is silly. The current title is more concise and natural, per WP:TITLE.  Also, the proposed title is more precise than necessary. Extraneous information about a topic, like peerage information, is something that belongs in the article lead, not in the title (except maybe if it's necessary for disambiguation).  The title should reflect the natural and concise name of the topic, period, which is exactly what the current title does.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet again, B2C is trying to use a discussion on an individual article to raise a generalised objection to a naming convention. This is part of a long-standing war-of-attrition strategy of B2C's, to try fighting the same battle on as many fronts as possible, in the hope of establishing precedents for his desired change, and evidence of "instability".
 * I don't know why you think this is an objection to a naming convention rather than the argument in favor of keeping this title per maximizing adherence to the principle naming criteria at WP:TITLE which it is, but I can't deny your right to misunderstand English. Others have explained to you why WP:MULTI does not apply here, but apparently you don't understand that either. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C, I think this is an objection to a naming convention because your rationale explicitly says that it is an objection to naming convention, and because you have repeatedly posted to other RMs explicitly stating your fundamental objection to the naming convention. In accordance with WP:TITLE, the convention defines some specific exceptions to the general principles, but you splat-pasted the same comment to numerous RMs arguing that editors should WP:IAR the guideline.
 * Okay, I'll bite. What specific words of mine here read to you to mean a general objection to a naming convention? What specific words of mine anywhere read to you to mean a "fundamental objection to the naming convention"?  I really need to know what those words are so I can stop using them, because clearly they are leading to misunderstanding. But yes, if there are N separate discussions, and the same objection applies in each, what's wrong with stating that objection in each?  I didn't start each of those discussions, which is what WP:MULTI is about ("avoid posting the same thread", not "the same comment"; "Instead, start the discussion in one location...", I didn't start any of the N discussions). But, then, you've shown a propensity to understand English words quite differently from me, so that's probably going on here too.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C, if you can't understand the English language, I have no intention of wasting my time trying to explain it to you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking you to quote the specific words of mine that you think express an objection to a naming convention. If you can't do that, you're not just misunderstanding my words, you're fantasizing their existence.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Commonly known before becoming a peer (I live in Australia and don't particularly follow British politics and I know of her) and is commonly known by her plain ordinary vanilla name as a basic google search would show. If WP:NCPEER states that this must be appended with an unnecessary noble term (and I don't think it does), then NCPEER needs to go. Guidelines are meant to be descriptive not prescriptive and should not be followed blindly and there is nothing wrong using discussions such as these to point out that the general rule is flawed. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)