Let me chime in with some background information that might help explain. Article title disputes are some of the longest and most difficult disputes to resolve on Wikipedia because many people, places, and things are well known by different names. So it is almost impossible to make everyone feel good about the final decision. Plus there is constantly a large incoming group of people who reopen the dispute.
Deciding on a name that is most widely associated with the person, place, and thing is a reasonably good way to resolve the dispute and explain it to the next group of people who question the title. So it is customary to use most widely known name when deciding on a title of an article. That said, Biographies of Living People need to be handled with extra care. I'm in favor of taking into consideration the views of the person if it does not violate other core policies. For example the name must be verifiable in reliable sources. This is a general issue beyond transgender naming rules. Part of the problem is the high profile nature of the person behind this article and the dramatic way the announcement took place. If I saw a request by a living person to rename an article that was verifiable I would change it and most of the time no one would care. Documenting the reason on the talk page would be adequate. This particular article dispute is troubling to me because it seems to highlight the systemic bias in Wikipedia. The talk page discussions had many I unenlightened comments that were offensive. I'm most worried that we are going enshrine in a revised policy a rigid naming convention that will cause distress to lesser known people who are trying to make their way in the world as they transition to their prefer gender identity. I, too, support giving a living person a voice in deciding. and I see no harm in using the gender pronouns and name that they prefer. Hope that helps explain why using re-directs is not the first way editors think to resolve this and other similar disputes. Sydney Poore User:FloNight Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Valerie Aurora <vale...@adainitiative.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming >> debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, >> but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a >> funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley >> Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability >> issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie, >> people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black. > > Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - "It's what > people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article." > As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for > "Shirley Temple" and you can get a page named "Shirley Temple Black" > with a little note at the top that says "Redirected from Shirley > Temple." > > Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't > sufficient for the "what people search for" argument? > > (FYI I'm on the "call people what they want to be called, including > pronouns" side of the question.) > > -VAL > > -- > You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and > culture! > Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/ > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
